GIFT  OF 


FROM   THE   PRESIDENT'S    OFFICE 
TO  THE  UNIVEBSITY  LIBEABY 


63D  CONGBESS")  CT?XTATT?  /DOCUMENT 

Sd  Session     /  SENATE  J     No>419 


WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION 


REPORT  UPON  OPERATION 
OF  STATE  LAWS 


INVESTIGATION  BY  COMMISSION 

OF 

THE  AMERICAN  FEDERATION 
OF  LABOR 

AND 

THE  NATIONAL  CIVIC  FEDERATION 


COMMISSION'S  FINDINGS 
VIEWS  OF  EMPLOYERS  AND  WORKMEN 

DIGEST  OF  LAWS 
RULES  OF  STATE  BOARDS  OF  AWARD 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1914 


SUBMITTED  BY  MB.  FLETCHEB. 

IN  THE  SENATE  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

February  IS,  1914. 

Resolved,  That  the  report  of  the  commission  appointed  by  the  National  Civic  Federa- 
tion and  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  to  study  the  operation  of  State  workmen's 
compensation  laws  be  printed  as  a  Senate  document,  together  with  the  appendix 
accompanying  said  report,  and  that  five  thousand  additional  copies  be  printed  for 
the  use  of  the  Senate. 

Attest: 

JAMES  M.  BAKER,  Secretary. 
.2 


COMMISSION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR  AND 
THE  NATIONAL  CIVIC  FEDERATION  TO  STUDY  OPERATION  OF 
STATE  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  LAWS. 

[Composed  of  representatives  of  the  public,  employers,  and  labor.] 

Chairman,  CYRUS  W.  PHILLIPS,  member  of  the  former  New  York  State  Commission 
on  Employers'  Liability,  and  an  attorney  at  law,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

J.  WALTER  LORD,  chairman  of  the  Maryland  State  Commission  on  Employers'  Lia- 
bility and  Workmen's  Compensation;  chairman  of  the  Civic  Federation's  Maryland 
State  council;  and  an  attorney  at  law,  Baltimore,  Md. 

OTTO  M.  EIDLITZ,  New  York  Building  Trades  Employers'  Association,  New  York  City. 

Louis  B.  SCHRAM,  chairman  labor  committee,  United  States  Brewers'  Association, 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

JAMES  DUNCAN,  vice  president,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  Quincy,  Mass. 

JOHN  MITCHELL,  vice  president,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  Mount  Vernon,  N.  Y. 

Mr.  Duncan  and  Mr.  Mitchell  were  appointed  by  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor  to  cooperate  with  the  National  Civic  Federation. 


COMMITTEE  ON  PLAN  AND  SCOPE. 

OTTO  M.  EIDLITZ,  chairman. 

Louis  B.  SCHRAM.  TIMOTHY  HEALT. 

SAMUEL  GOMPERS.  E.  H.  LETCHWORTH. 

W.  H.  MARSHALL.  M.  F.  WESTOVER. 

FRANK  V.  WHITING.  RAYNAL  C.  BOLLINO. 


AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR. 


EXECUTIVE  COUNCIL. 

President,  SAMUEL  GOMPERS. 
Secretary,  FRANK  MORRISON. 
Treasurer,  JOHN  B.  LENNON,  Bloomtngton,  111. 


First  vice  president.  JAMES  DUNCAN,  Hancock 
Building,  Quincy,  Mass. 

Second  vice  president,  JAMES  O'CONNELL.  512 
Ouray  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Third  vice  president,  D.  A.  HAYES,  930  Wither- 
spoon  Building,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Fourth  vice  president,  Jos.  F.  VALENTINE,  Com- 
mercial Tribune  Building,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 


Fifth  vice  president,  JOHN  R.  ALPINE,  401-406  Bush 
Temple  of  Music,  Chicago,  111. 

Sixth  vice  president,  H.  B.  PERHAM,  Star  Build- 
ing, St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Seventh  vice  president,  FRANK  DUFFY,  Carpen- 
ter's Building,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 


THE  NATIONAL  CIVIC  FEDERATION. 


EXECUTIVE  COUNCIL. 


SETH  Low,  president. 

SAMUEL  GOMPERS,  vice  president. 

BENJAMIN  IDE  WHEELER,  vice  president. 

ISAAC  N.  SELIGMAN,  treasurer. 

RALPH  M.  EASLEY,  chairman  Executive  Council. 

JOHN  HAYS  HAMMOND,  chairman  Industrial  Eco- 
nomics Department. 

WILLIAM  R.  WILLCOX,  chairman  Welfare  Depart- 
ment. 

M,iss  MAUDE  WETMORE,  chairman  Woman's  De- 
•partment. 

AUGUST  BELMONT,  chairman  Department  Com- 
pensation Industrial  Accidents. 


EMERSON  MCMILLIN,  chairman  Department  Inter- 
state and  Municipal  Utilities. 

GEORGE  W.  PERKINS,  chairman  Social  Insurance 
Department. 

ALTON  B.  PARKER,  chairman  Department  on  Re- 
form in  Legal  Procedure. 

SETH  Low,  chairman  Department  on  Regulation  of 
Industrial  Corporations. 

MARCUS  M.  MARKS,  chairman  Department  on  In- 
dustrial Mediation  Law. 

E.  R.  A.  SELIGMAN,  chairman  Taxation  Depart- 
ment. 

D.  L.  CEASE,  secretary. 


DEPARTMENT  ON  COMPENSATION  FOR  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENTS 
AND  THEIR  PREVENTION— THE  NATIONAL  CIVIC  FEDERA- 
TION. 

OFFICERS. 


AUGUST  BELMONT,  chairman. 

FRANCIS  LYNDE  STETSON,  chairman  committee  on 
legislative  policy. 

P.  TECUMSEH  SHEKMAN,  chairman  legal  compen- 
sation committee. 


Louis  B.  SCHEAM,  chairman  committee  on  in>- 
provement  of  State  inspection  of  factories  with 
special  reference  to  safeguarding  machinery. 

OTTO  M.  EIDLITZ  chairman  committee  on  plan 
and  scope,  and  finance. 

Miss  GERTRUDE  BEEKS,  secretary. 


EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE 


ALPINE,  JOHN  R.  (president  Association  of  Plumb- 
ers, Gas  Fitters,  and  Steam  Fitters),  Chicago. 

BALDWIN,  WILLIAM  D.  (president  Otis  Elevator 
Co.),  New  York  City. 

BARTLETT,  GEORGE  A.  (Member  of  Congress), 
Tonopah,  Nev. 

BELMONT  AUGUST  (Interborough  Rapid  Transit 
Co.),  New  York. 

BLAINE,  JOHN  J.  (member  former  industrial  insur- 
ance committee  of  Wisconsin),  Boscobel,  Wis. 

BOHLEN,  FRANCIS  H.  (cUairman  compensation 
committee,  Pennsylvania  Council,  the  National 
Civic  Federation),  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

BOLLING,  RAYNAL  C.  (assistant  general  solicitor, 
United  States  Steel  Corporation),  New  York 
City. 

BUCKLEY,  E.  R.  (American  Mining  Congress), 
Rolla,  Mo. 

BUTLER.  CHARLES  H.  (chairman  compensation 
committee  American  Bar  Association),  Wash- 
ington, D.  C. 

BUTLER,  J.  G.,  jr.  (president  Bessemer  Pig  Iron 
Association),  Youngstown,  Ohio. 

BYLLESBY,  H.  M.,  Chicago,  111. 

CARMICAL,  DREWRY  A.  (president  Carmical  Manu- 
facturing Co.),  Union  City.  Ga. 

COOLIDGE,  L.  A.  (treasurer  United  Shoe  Machinery 
Co.),  Boston,  Mass. 

CONWAY,  ROBERT  E.  (Armour  &  Co.),  National 
Stock  Yards  P.  O.,  Illinois. 

CURWEN,  SAMUEL  M.  (J.  G.  Brill  Co.),  Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

DAVIES,  EDGAR  T.  (former  chief,  Illinois  State  fac- 
tory inspection  department),  Chicago,  111. 

DOLAN,  T.  J.  (secretary-treasurer  International 
Brotherhood  of  Steam  Shovel  and  Dredge  Men), 
Chicago. 

DONAHUE,  CHARLES  J.  (State  Federation  of  Labor), 
Derby,  Conn. 

DUNCAN,  JAMES  (president  Granite  Cutters'  Inter- 
national Association  of  America),  Quincy,  Mass. 

DU  PONT,  PIERRE  S.  (E.  I.  du  Pont  de  Nemours 
Powder  Co.),  Wilmington,  Del. 

EIDLITZ,  OTTO  M.  (New  York  Building  Trades 
Employers'  Association),  New  York  City. 

ESPENHAIN,  F.  "K.  (president  Espenhain  Dry 
Goods  Co.),  Milwaukee,  Wis. 

ESTABROOK,  HENRY  D.  (attorney), New  York  City. 

FAXON,  WALTER  C.  (vice  president  the  /Etna  Life 
Insurance  Co.)  Hartford. 

FISH,  FREDERICK  S.  (Studebaker  Bros.  Manufac- 
turing Co.),  South  Bend.  Ind. 

FISKE,  HALEY  (vice  president  Metropolitan  Insur- 
ance Co.),  New  York  City. 

GARRETSON,  A.  B.  (president  Order  of  Railway 
Conductors),  Cedar  Rapids,  Iowa. 

GILLETTE,  GEORGE  M.  (Minnesota  Employers' 
Association),  Minneapolis. 

GODARD,  A.  A.  (attorney),  Topeka,  Kans. 

GOMPERS,  SAMUEL  (president  American  Federa- 
tion 01  Labor),  Washington,  D.  C. 

HAMILTON,  GRANT  (chairman  compensation  for 
industrial  accidents  committee,  District  of  Co- 
lumbia Council,  the  National  Civic  Federation), 
Washington,  D.  C. 


HAYES,  DENIS  A.  (president  Glass  Bottle  Blowers' 
Association),  Philadelphia. 

HEALY,  TIMOTHY  (president  Inte  rnational  .Broth- 
erhood of  Stationary  1-  ireinen),  New  Yo  "k. 

HERR,  EDWIN  M.  (president  Westinghouse  Elec- 
tric &  Air  Brake  Company),  Pittsburgh. 

HOYT,  COLGATE  (banker),  New  York  city. 

HUBER,  WILLIAM  D.  president  United  Brother- 
hood of  Carpenters)  Indianapolis. 

JAMES,  FRANCIS  B.  (attorney),  Cincinnati,  Ohio, 

JONES,  RICHARD,  jr.  (Republic  Iron  &  Steel  Co';), 
Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

LORD,  J.  WALTER  (chairman  Maryland  State  com- 
mission on  workmen's  .compensation  and  chafip- 
man  Maryland  State  Council,  the  National  Civic 
Federation),  Baltimore,  Md. 

LYNCH,  JAMES  M.  (president  International  Typo- 
graphical Union),  Indianapolis,  Ind. 

MACY,  V.  EVERIT  (publicist),  New  York  City. 

MARKS,  MARCUS  M.  (National  Association  of  Cloth- 
iers), New  York  City. 

MARSHALL,  W.  H.  (president  American  Locomo- 
tive Co.),  New  York  City. 

METZ,  HERMAN  A.  (U.  A.  Metz  &  Co.),  New  York 
City. 

PARKER,  LEWIS  W.  (president  Parker  Cotton 
Mills  Co.),  Greenville,  S.  C. 

PHILLIPS,  CYRUS  W.  (member  former  New  Yor£ 
State  commission  on  employers'  liability),  Roch- 
ester", N.  Y. 

PORTER,  A.  J.  (president  the  Shredded  Wheat  Co.), 
Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y.  • 

SELLERS,  E.  B.  (chairman  compensation  commit- 
tee. Indiana  Council,  the  National  Civic  Federa- 
tion), Mont  icello.  Ind. 

SMITH,  GEORGE  W.  (Lackawanna  Steel  Co.),  Buf- 
falo, N.  Y. 

SNOW,  ELLIOT  (naval  constructor,  United  States 
Navy,  William  Cramp  &  Sons  Steamship  and 
Engine  Buildinc  Co.),  Philadelphia. 

SCHRAM  Louis  B.  (chairman  labor  committee 
United  States  Brewers'  Association),  Brooklyn. 
N.Y. 

STARRING,  MASON  B.  (president  United  Railways 
Investment  Co.),  New  York. 

STETSON,  FRANCIS  LYNDE  (attorney),  New  York 
City. 

TAYLOR,  WTILLIAM  H.  (president  St.  Clair  Coal  Co.), 
Scranton,  Pa. 

TERRY,  CHARLES  THADDEUS  .'president  Conference 
of  Commissioners  on  Uniform  State  Laws),  New 
York  City. 

TOBIN.  JOHN  F.  (president  Boot  and  Shoe  Work- 
ers' Union),  Boston,  Mass. 

TOMPKINS,  D.  A.  (president  the  D.  A.  Tompkins 
Co.),  Charlotte,  NT  C. 

ULLMAN.  COL.  ISAAC  M.  (corset  manufacturer), 
New  Haven,  Conn. 

WILEY,  Louis  (the  New  York  Times),  New  York 
City. 

WILLIAMS,  JOHN  (former  commissioner  of  labor, 
State  of  New  York),  Albany,  N.  Y. 

WOODRUFF,  ROLLIN  S.  (president  C.  S.  Mersick  & 
Co.),  New  Haven,  Conn. 

And  officers  and  chairmen  of  committees. 


CONTENTS. 

Section  No.  Page. 

Introduction 9 

Plan  and  scope  of  inquiry 9 

Attitude  of  employers  and  workmen  and  interest  shown 10 

I.  Uniformity  of  legislation 13 

II.  The  principle  of  workmen's  compensation 13 

III.  Further  extension  of  employers'  liability  in  absence  of  compensation 

laws 14 

IV.  Questions  involved  should  be  considered  separately 

V.  Elective  versus  compulsory  acts 15 

VI.  Defenses  abrogated  under 'elective  acts 17 

VII.  Extent  to  which  compensation  has  been  adopted.* 17 

Reasons  for  accepting  or  rejecting  the  elective  acts 19 

VIII..  Trend  of  legislation 20 

IX.  Satisfaction  with  compensation  acts  as  against  liability  laws 20 

X.  Effect  upon  relation  between  employer  and  employee 21 

XI.  Effect  on  accident  prevention 23 

XII.  Insurance  of  employers  doing  business  in  different  States 24 

XIII.  Nonresident  aliens 25 

XIV.  Employments  covered 26 

XV.  Injuries  covered 27 

Injuries  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment 27 

What  are  accidental  injuries 1 28 

XVI.  Contractors'  liability  to  employees  of  subcontractors 29 

XVII.  Exclusiveness  of  remedy 30 

XVIII.  Medical  and  surgical  aid 31 

XIX.  Waiting  period 37 

XX.  Amount  of  compensation 39 

XXI.  Contribution  by  employees 41 

XXII.  Litigation  under  compensation  acts 42 

XXIII.  Administration  by  industrial  accident  boards 43 

XXIV.  Methods  of  insuring 48 

Policies  for  benefit  of  workmen  and  for  unlimited  liability 53 

Carrying  own  risk 53 

Making  deposit 55 

XXV.  Cost  of  compensation 56 

Statistics 58 

XXVI.  Summary  and  conclusions 58 

APPENDIX. 

1.  Digest  of  principal  provisions  of  statutes  in  force  January  1,  1914 63 

Election — how  made 63 

Employments  covered 66 

Injuries  covered 72 

Medical  and  surgical  aid 73 

Waiting  period 75 

Amount  of  compensation — 

Total  disability 76 

Partial  disability 81 

Loss  of  members 84 

Death  benefits 92 

Who  are  dependents 100 

Determination  of  amount  of  compensation  and  settlement  of  disputes.  106 

Exclusiveness  of  remedy 113 

Methods  of  insurance 114 

7 


8  CONTENTS. 

Pagei 

2.  Rules  adopted  by  State  boards  or  commissions 124 

Massachusetts 124 

Michigan 126 

California 127 

Ohio 131 

3.  Statement  typical  of  methods  of  administration  pursued  by  State  boards  or 

commissions 138 

Wisconsin 138 

4.  Forms  used  by  State  boards 140 

Massachusetts 140 

Michigan • 146 

California 151 

4A.  Forms — receipts  for  compensation  payments 152 

Michigan 152 

Massachusetts 153 

5.  Medical  and  surgical  aid 154 

Recommendations   made  by  Massachusetts   medical   advisory  com- 
mittee    154 

Report  to  Massachusetts  Industrial  Accident  Board  by  insurance  com- 
panies   155 

Medical  and  surgical  fee  schedules  adopted  by  two  insurance  com- 
panies   155 

Surgeon's  fee  bill,  Ohio 158 

Hospitals 161 

SA.  Malingering 163 

6.  Acceptances  and  rejections  of  elective  acts  by  employers 165 

7.  Suggestions  by  employers  for  amendment  of  laws 180 

7A.  Statistics 198 

California 198 

Massachusetts 207 

Michigan 210 

Ohio 211 

Washington  v 212 

8.  Itinerary  of  commission  and  names  of  public  officials,  employers,  labor  rep- 

resentatives, and  insurance  officials 213 

9.  Boards  of  award — workmen's  compensation  commissions 251 


INTRODUCTION. 


Lack  of  uniformity  in  State  laws  upon  the  subject  and  the  neces- 
sity of  securing  facts  to  assist  employers,  workmen,  and  legislators 
to  decide  rightfully  when  promoting  new  legislation  caused  the  Na- 
tional Civic  Federation,  through  its  department  on  compensation 
for  industrial  accidents  and  their  prevention,  to  form  a  commission 
to  study  the  operation  of  State  workmen's  compensation  acts. 

The  American  Federation  of  Labor  was  invited  to  cooperate,  and 
the  executive  council  of  that  body  named  two  of  its  members  to  act 
upon  the  commission. 

It  was  the  belief  that  such  an  investigation  would  be  of  benefit  not 
only  to  States  which  have  not  yet  enacted  compensation  legislation 
but  also  to  those  in  which  laws  have  been  passed;  that  by  bringing 
out  the  respective  merits  and  demerits  of  the  various  laws  there 
would  be  afforded  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  difficulties  involved 
and  a  more  definite  and  exact  knowledge  of  the  benefits  to  be  derived 
from  this  great  reform;  and  that  the  inquiry  would  assist  in  further 
development  along  just  and  sound  economic  lines,  tend  toward  se- 
curing uniformity  of  legislation  in  the  different  States,  and  aid  in 
bringing  about  a  better  feeling  of  cooperation  between  employer  and 
workman. 

PLAN  AND  SCOPE  OF  INQUIRY. 

The  purpose  of  the  commission  was  to  ascertain  the  facts  with  re- 
gard to  the  operation  of  workmen's  compensation  laws,  rather  than 
to  report  upon  theories  or  to  make  recommendations.  The  intent 
was  the  use  of  the  information  by  the  Civic  Federation  in  drafting 
a  new  model  workmen's  compensation  law. 

The  scope  of  the  inquiry  was  comprehensive  and  involved  personal 
conferences  and  hearings  in  the  States  having  had  the  most  experience 
and  typifying  different  schemes  or  plans  of  compensation.  There 
were  included  various  types  of  elective  acts  and  compulsory  State 
insurance  laws. 

Some  of  the  questions  upon  which  information  was  secured  were: 
"  Degree  of  satisfaction  given  by  compensation  as  against  liability 
laws;"  "The  value  of  elective  versus  compulsory  compensation  laws;" 
" Reasons  for  accepting  or  rejecting  elective  acts;"  "The  amount  of 
compensation;"  "Contributions  by  employees;"  "Methods  of  insur- 
ing;" "Cost  -of  compensation;"  " Exclusiveness  of  compensation 
remedy;"  "Employers'  defenses  abrogated  under  elective  acts;" 
"Employments  covered;"  "Nonresident  alien  dependents;"  "Con- 
tractors liable  to  employees  of  subcontractors;"  "Length  of  waiting 
period;"  "Medical  and  surgical  aid;"  "Effect  on  prevention  of  acci- 
dents;" "Litigation  under  compensation  acts;"  "Methods  of  admin- 
istration;" and  "Effect  upon  relations  of  employer  and  workman." 

9 


10  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

The  commission  covered  a  sufficient  area  to  represent  in  effect  all 
interests  in  the  entire  country.  Members  of  the  commission  visited 
various  cities  in  8  of  the  22  States  having  compensation  laws,  all 
the  way  from  Massachusetts  and  New  Jersey  in  the  East,  Ohio, 
Michigan,  Illinois,  and  Wisconsin  in  the  Central  West,  to  California 
and  Washington  on  the  Pacific  Coast.  Conferences  were  had  with 
State  commissions  or  accident  boards  charged  with  administering 
the  laws,  representatives  of  both  the  employer  and  the  employed,  and 
of  insurance  companies.  Nevada,  Kansas,  Minnesota,  Rhode  Island, 
and  New  Hampshire  were  covered  by  correspondence. 

The  labor  viewpoint  as  to  the  benefits  derived  from  workmen's 
compensation  legislation  was  especially  sought. 

Letters  of  inquiry  and  questionnaires  were  sent  approximately  to 
25,000  employers  in  the  12  States  having  had  sufficient  experience 
to  provide  data  of  value,  and  to  the  secretaries  of  all  State  and  city 
branches  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  in  those  States.  The 
answers  received  covered  these  branches  and  employers  representing 
a  pay  roU  of  $358,640,383. 

ATTITUDE   OF  EMPLOYERS   AND  WORKMEN  AND  INTEREST   SHOWN. 

The  compensation  statutes  having  been  in  operation  in  any  of  the 
States  but  a  short  time,  neither  official  nor  general  experience  under 
the  law  was  as  complete  as  desirable.  Consequently  information  was 
frequently  limited  to  particular  phases  of  the  problem.  In  fact, 
those  whom  the  commission  met  were  hi  many  cases  seeking  infor- 
mation, and  realized  the  necessity  for  their  own  education  on  the 
subject.  As  a  rule,  the  person  tes tifying  saw  the  question  under 
discussion  from  his  own  viewpoint  or  experience,  which  resulted  at 
times  in  one  employer  at  a  conference  combating  the  arguments  pre- 
sented by  another. 

One  of  the  obvious  facts  educed  was  the  apparent  honesty  of  pur- 
pose with  which  those  conferring  with  the  commission  approached 
the  subject.  A  reasonable  inference  is  that  employers  and  em- 
ployees in  general  throughout  the  country  are  viewing  the  compen- 
sation problem  with  a  desire  to  be  fair  and  just.  Differences  hi 
attitude  may  safely  be  attributed  either  to  a  misunderstanding  of 
the  subject  or  to  the  effect  of  seeing  it  from  a  limited  viewpoint, 
sources  of  error  to  be  remedied  by  experience.  The  employer  who 
complains  of  the  law  because  it  requires  him  to  pay  compensation 
for  an  accident  hi  which  he  is  clearly  not  to  blame,  or  whicn  possibly 
may  be  due  to  the  fault  of  the  injured  person,  will  get  a  proader 
view  of  the  law  when  later  he  is  relieved  from  a  liability  suit  with 
full  damages  hi  a  case  in  which  he  has  been  wholly  at  fault.  Like- 
wise the  employee  who  receives  no  compensation,  for  the  reason  that 
his  injury  incapacitates  him  for  a  time  shorter  than  the  legal  waiting 
period,  will  get  a  different  and  a  better  idea  of  the  law  later  when  he 
or  some  fellow  worker  meets  with  a  permanent  injury,  and  receives 
compensation  promptly  without  controversy. 

Throughout  the  inquiry  it  was  found  that  employers,  workmen, 
public  officials,  and  insurance  agents  were  keen  in  their  desire  to  aid 
the  commission.  So  great  was  the  interest  that  officials  of  employ- 
ers' associations  and  labor  organizations  were  able  to  obtain  from 
among  their  members  an  attendance  at  conferences  hi  immediate 


INTRODUCTION.  11 

response  to  telephone  requests.  The  representatives  of  these  asso- 
ciations and  organizations  actively  aided  the  commission  and  ex- 
tended many  courtesies.  Public  officials  charged  with  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  law  generously  tendered  their  services,  devoted  entire 
days  to  the  conferences,  and  furnished  information  whenever  called 
upon.  The  commission  desires  here  to  express  thanks  to  these  rep- 
resentatives and  officials,  as  well  as  to  the  employers  and  workmen 
who  have  responded  to  the  letters  and  questionnaires.  The  names 
appear  in  Appendix  No.  8.  The  assistance  given  was  helpful  beyond 
expectation.  Several  thousand  of  the  question  schedules  have  been 
returned  to  the  commission  fully  answered;  in  hundreds  of  cases  ex- 
tended views  of  the  employers  were  expressed.  The  principal  offi- 
cials of  the  trade  unions  hi  the  several  States  visited  expressed  at 
length  the  attitude  of  the  union  men  with  respect  to  the  various  acts 
and  stated  their  aims  with  regard  to  desired  legislation  or  amend- 
ments to  existing  legislation.  Voluminous  testimony  was  taken  at 
the  conferences. 


REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSION. 


To  Messrs.  SAMUEL  GOMPERS, 

President  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and 
AUGUST  BELMONT, 

Cliairman  of  the    Workmen's   Compensation  Depart- 
ment, the  National  Civic  Federation. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  commission  appointed  in  July,  1914,  to  investi- 
gate the  operation  of  State  workmen's  compensation  acts  respect- 
fully submits  herewith  its  report: 

I.  UNIFORMITY  OF  LEGISLATION. 

Employers  strongly  expressed  their  desire  for  substantial  uni- 
formity in  legislation.  The  employer  who  is  engaged  in  construc- 
tion work  in  several  States,  as  well  as  the  manufacturer  who  oper- 
ates plants  in  different  States,  or  who  sends  men  from  one  vState  to 
another  to  install  machinery,  desires  uniformity  of  legislation, 
especially  in  the  methods  of  administration. 

Uniformity  of  cost  is  an  element  of  vital  interest  to  employers. 
For  this  reason  they  have  frequently  asked,  first,  that  the  elective 
acts  of  their  States  be  made  compulsory,  so  that  all  employers  may 
compete  on  the  same  basis;  and  secondly,  that  there  be  uniformity 
in  cost  under  the  acts  of  the  various  States.  In  expressing  this  view, 
one  employer  said  to  the  commission: 

There  should  be  uniformity  as  between  the  amounts  paid  in  different  States.  It 
stands  to  reason  that  if  the  manufacturers  in  one  State  should  pay  75  per  cent  of  the 
wages  earned  by  the  workmen  and  those  in  an  adjoining  State,  for  instance,  should 
pay  from  35  to  40  per  cent,  the  manufacturers  of  the  first  State  would  be  at  a  disad- 
vantage. It  is  immaterial,  BO  long  as  you  have  a  fixed  method,  whether  the  amount 
paid  is  one  sum  or  another. 

Naturally  this  uniformity  could  not  be  attained  in  the  early  stages 
of  the  legislation.  The  experience  gained  by  the  States  in  following 
their  different  methods  is  valuable.  The  uniformity  desirable  will 
undoubtedly  come  as  a  result  of  the  adoption  by  eacn  State  of  those 
provisions  of  the  various  acts  which  experience  shows  give  the  beet 
results. 

H.  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION.  _. 

The  principle  of  workmen's  compensation  is  that  industry  in  gen- 
eral should  bear  the  financial  burden  of  all  industrial  accidents  rather 
than  the  workers  who  happen  to  be  the  victims  of  particular  acci- 
dents, and  that  the  only  way  this  can  be  accomplisned  is  through 
the  agency  of  the  employer  who,  in  computing  costs  and  fixing  the 
price  of  his  finished  product  will  include  the  industrial  losses  due  to 
accidents. 

13 


14  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Industrial  operations  being  broadly  considered,  the  question  of 
direct  fault  is  not  material.  The  fact  that  loss  of  bodily  faculty  and 
regular  wages  occurs  entitles  the  victim  to  compensation  unless  his 
injuries  have  been  received  through  his  own  willful  intent.  In  this 
concept  of  social  obligation  the  compensation  principle  differs  from 
the  old  system  of  employers'  liability,  under  which  the  employer 

Eaid  damages  only  where  the  accident  was  due  to  his  fault  or  the 
lult  of  his  servants. 

HI.  FURTHER  EXTENSION  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  IN  ABSENCE 
OF  COMPENSATION  LAWS. 

The  liability  of  employers  under  the  liability  act  could  have  been 
and  undoubtedly  will  be  further  increased  by  the  enactment  of  safety 
requirements  and  regulations,  the  violation  of  which  would  imply 
negligence  and  create  liability  on  the  part  of  the  employers.  This 
phase  of  the  subject  is  illustrated  by  Federal  law.  Under  the  safety 
appliance  act  affecting  interstate  railroad  employees,  as  interpreted 
by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  the  employer  is  under  an 
at  solute  duty  not  only  to  install  specified  safety  appliances  but  to 
keep  them  in  order.  The  original  argument  of  the  railroad  com- 
panies was  that,  having  installed  safety  appliances  as  required  by 
the  statute,  their  full  duty  was  performed  by  using  reasonable 
care  in  keeping  them  in  order,  but  this  contention  the  Supreme  Court 
overruled,  deciding  that  the  duty  imposed  upon  the  railroad  com- 
pany to  install  the  safety  appliances  was  a  continuing  one  and  that  the 
company  was  liable  to  an  employee  injured  from  failure  to  keep  the 
appliances  in  older.  From  this  it  is  apparent  that  if  compensation 
had  not  been  proposed  the  employers'  liability  would  ultimately 
have  been  greatly  increased  both  by  the  removal  of  the  defenses 
hereinafter  referred  to  and  the  adoption  of  strict  safety  requirements. 
Since  it  is  certain  that  liability  laws,  based  as  they  are  upon  neligence 
or  the  violation  of  a  statutory  duty,  can  never  reach  all  accidents, 
as  many  can  not  be  traced  to  legal  fault  of  any  kind,  an  employer 
would  have  found  himself  under  the  burden  of  an  expensive  lia- 
bility law  without  affording  protection  to  all  of  his  employees. 

IV.  QUESTIONS  INVOLVED  SHOULD  BE  CONSIDERED  SEPARATELY. 

At  the  very  outset  of  its  inquiry  the  commission  became  convinced 
that  each  of  the  problems  arising  under  existing  compensation  acts 
should  be  considered  separately,  and  that  much  of  the  confusion  that 
exists  upon  the  subject  is  due  to  the  fact  that  public  opinion  with 
regard  to  a  particular  statute  is  controlled  and  influenced  by  some 
particular  feature  of  the  law,  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that 
particular  feature  is  merely  incidental  and  not  essential  to  the 
operation  of  the  principle  of  workmen's  compensation.  This  be- 
came apparent,  for  example,  when  persons  were  found  criticizing 
compensation  legislation  in  general,  when  as  a  fact  their  antipathy 
had  been  aroused  merely  by  reason  of  a  particular  defect  or  through 
faulty  method  of  administration  which  could  easily  have  been  cured; 
on  the  other  hand,  persons  were  found  praising  a  particular  method 
of  administration  in  their  own  State,  entirely  unmindful  of  the  fact 
that  equally  fortunate  results  had  been  reached  under  other  methods 
in  other  States. 


KEPOET   OF   COMMISSION.  15 

The  principle  of  granting  compensation  to  injured  workmen,  regard- 
less of  fault,  is  the  essential  attribute  of  a  compensation  act;  that 
principle  should  be  tested  upon  its  own  merits.  The  methods  of 
administration  and  of  insuring  the  payment  of  compensation  are 
entirely  separable  from  the  consideration  of  the  principle  of  work- 
men's compensation.  During  the  inquiry  the  commission  found  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  as  to  administrative  and  insurance  matters  among 
those  who  agreed  as  to  the  principle  of  workmen's  compensation, 
and  attempt  has  been  made  here  to  separate  these  various  questions 
so  that  each  may  be  considered  by  itself. 

V.  ELECTIVE  VERSUS  COMPULSORY  ACTS. 

The  Court  of  Appeals  of  New  York  held,  in  the  Ives  case,  that  the 
compulsory  compensation  act  involved  in  that  decision — the  first 
act  passed  in  the  State,  in  1910 — was  unconstitutional,  inasmuch  as 
making  an  employer  liable  to  pay  compensation  to  an  injured  work- 
man for  an  injury  due  to  no  fault  or  neglect  of  law  upon  the  part  of 
the  employer  was  "a  taking  of  property  without  due  process  of  law." 
The  court  held  that  a  statute  could  properly  remove  the  defense  of 
contributory  negligence  as  well  as  that  of  the  fellow-servant  rule, 
but  that  the  defense  of  assumption  of  risk  could  not  be  abrogated 
except  where  the  risk  involved  some  fault  or  neglect  of  duty  upon 
the  part  of  the  employer;  that  is,  the  law  could  not  be  abrogate  the 
assumption  by  the  employee  of  the  inherent  risks  of  an  occupation. 
A  year  later  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Washington,  in  sus- 
taining the  compulsory  act  of  that  State,  was  not  in  agreement  with 
the  New  York  Court  of  Appeals,  although  it  claimed  that  the  Wash- 
ington statute  was  different  from  that  of  New  York. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  New  York  compulsory  act  involved  in  the 
Ives  decision  did  not  make  compensation  the  exclusive  remedy  of  the 
employee;  it  retained  as  against  the  employer  all  existing  liabilities 
based  on  negligence,  and  in  addition  attempted  to  create  for  the 
employee  the  right  to  compensation  for  accidents  regardless  of  fault, 
thus  permitting  the  injured  employee  to  elect  after  an  accident  which 
remedy  he  would  pursue.  In  other  words,  the  effect  of  this  statute 
was  to  create  a  compensation  act  covering  the  accidents  in  which  no 
fault  or  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  employer  was  involved,  and 
retaining  for  the  employee  his  rights  under  the  liability  law  for  all 
accidents  due  to  the  fault  or  negligence  of  the  employer. 

Aside  from  the  Washington  decision  sustaining  the  act  of  that 
State,  no  court  has  as  yet  determined  the  constitutionality  of  a 
statute  creating  a  compensation  act  covering  all  injuries  regardless 
of  fault  and  making  such  act  the  exclusive  remedy  of  the  employee. 

Since  the  decision  in  the  Ives  case  declaring  the  workmen's  compen- 
sation act  of  1910  unconstitutional,  22  States,  including  New  York, 
have  adopted  compensation  acts,  all  elective  with  the  exception  of 
Washington,  though  California,  Ohio,  and  New  York  have  amended 
their  constitutions  in  this  respect,  and  have  enacted  compulsory  acts 
which  went  into  effect  on  January  1,  1914.1 

The  method  of  making  the  election  varies  in  different  States.  In 
some  States  the  employer  is  required  to  signify  his  acceptance  of  the 

i  In  Wyoming,  a  constitutional  amendment  has  been  passed  by  the  legislature  and  will  be  submitted 
to  the  people  at  the  general  election  in  November,  1914.' 


16  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

law  by  an  affirmative  act,  such  as  filing  a  written  statement  to  that 
effect  with  a  specified  board  or  official  and  notifying  his  employees. 
In  certain  States  the  employer  is  presumed  to  have  accepted  the  act 
unless  he  files  a  statement  to  the  contrary. 

New  Jersey  was  the  first  State  to  adopt  the  latter  method.  The 
result  there  was  that  as  very  few  employers  notified  their  employees 
of  their  election  not  to  accept  the  act,  nearly  all  the  employers  were 
brought  under  its  operation.  The  success  of  the  New  Jersey  act  in 
respect  to  its  acceptance  is  generally  attributed  to  this  method  of 
election.  However,  Massachusetts  and  Michigan  have  since  been 
nearly,  if  not  quite,  as  successful  in  bringing  employers  and  employees 
under  compensation,  although  to  do  so  an  affirmative  act  is  required 
from  the  employer. 

While  the  New  Jersey  method  has  been  fruitful  in  establishing  the 
proportion  of  employers  coming  under  the  act  at  a  maximum,  it  has 
manifest  disadvantages.  The  commission  found  among  employers 
in  Michigan  and  Massachusetts  a  more  widespread  interest  in  the 
principle  of  compensation  than  in  New  Jersey,  with  a  corresponding 
stricter  observance  of  the  spirit  of  the  law.  This  must  be  ascribed 
to  the  fact  that  employers  in  these  two  States  came  under  the  act 
with  their  eyes  open,  testifying  by  a  voluntary  act  that  they  believed 
in  the  principle  and  submitted  to  the  law,  while  in  New  Jersey 
employers  in  general  are  under  the  law  automatically,  many  with- 
out having  given  it  thought  or  attention.  The  spirit  of  cooperation 
existing  between  employer  and  employee  hi  Massachusetts  and 
Michigan  is  a  public  benefit,  and  in  so  far  as  that  spirit  may  be  due 
to  the  fact  that  the  law  is  elective  and  its  acceptance  was  voluntary 
the  law  is  entitled  to  full  credit. 

In  the  early  stages  of  workmen's  compensation,  an  elective  law 
accepted  by  affirmative  action,  while  defective  to  the  extent  that  it 
did  not  fairly  regulate  competition  between  employers  and  did  not 
uniformly  protect  the  workmen,  was  more  educational  in  its  effects 
than  either  a  compulsory  act  or  an  elective  act  of  the  New  Jersey  type. 
However,  other  States  have  had,  and  will  continue  to  have,  the 
benefits  of  the  educational  advantages  of  the  Massachusetts  and 
Michigan  acts  and  are  now  following  the  elective  methods  of  the 
New  Jersey  act.  Furthermore,  the  arguments  that  favor  an  elective 
as  against  a  compulsory  act  do  not  apply  at  present  with  the  same 
force  as  in  the  tentative  period  of  workmen's  compensation  in  this 
country. 

There  was  found  among  employers  considerable  sentiment  for 
compulsory  compensation.  It  was  argued  that  the  employer  volun- 
tarily accepting  compensation  should  not  be  placed  at  a  competitive 
disadvantage  with  the  neglectful  or  less  humane  employer  refusing 
to  accept  it,  and  that  hence  the  law  should  be  compulsory.  Natur- 
ally, in  those  States  in  which  the  elective  act  has  been  generally 
accepted,  the  demand  for  a  compulsory  act  is  not  so  urgent;  yet 
employers  in  them  not  under  the  act  are  in  many  cases  not  likely  to 
pay  damages,  even  in  case  of  fault,  unless  forced  to,  and  they  are 
less  likely  to  carry  insurance  for  the  protection  of  their  employees. 
In  fact,  employers  in  States  where  insurance  is  required,  complained 
that  whereas  by  accepting  the  compensation  act  they  are  required  to 
carry  insurance,  the  employers  who  refused  to  accept  the  act  escape 
its  responsibilities,  including  the  requirements  for  carrying  insurance 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  17 

for  the  protection  of  even  those  employees  who  may  be  injured 
through  their  own  fault. 

Whatever  differences  of  opinion  were  presented  to  the  commission 
by  employers  as  to  the  wisdom  or  advantage  of  a  compulsory  act, 
there  was  no  difference  among  the  workmen  on  this  question.  Their 
testimony  was  uniformly  in  favor  of  a  comprehensive  compulsory  act, 
with  such  insurance  requirements  as  would  fully  protect  injured 
workmen  and  their  dependents. 

In  its  report  for  the  year  1913,  the  Massachusetts  Industrial  Acci- 
dent Board  says: 

It  has  become  evident  that  as  a  matter  of  justice  and  public  welfare,  compensation 
acts  should  be  uniform  and  compulsory  and  apply  to  all  employees  and  occupations 
alike.  For  about  one-quarter  of  the  employees  and  their  families  in  Massachusetts 
to  be  left  practically  unprotected  from  evils  consequent  upon  occupational  injuries 
is  unsatisfactory  as  a  permanent  condition.  The  reason  for  making  such  laws  elective 
in  form,  as  has  been  done  in  most  of  the  States  which  have  adopted  them,  is  to  avoid 
possible  constitutional  objections.  The  elective  method  makes  a  needlessly  compli- 
cated and  cumbersome  legal  and  administrative  enforcement  of  the  act. 

VI.  DEFENSES   ABROGATED   UNDER   ELECTIVE    ACTS. 

Under  an  elective  compensation  act  an  employer  is  given  his 
choice  of  accepting  the  act  or  operating  under  the  liability  law  with 
certain  long  recognized  defenses  removed.  These  defenses  are 
assumption  of  risk,  the  fellow-servant  rule,  and  contributory  negli- 
gence. Exceptions  in  the  abrogation  of  defenses  were  made  in 
Texas  and  in  Wisconsin  under  its  original  compensation  act;  in  these 
two  States  the  doctrine  of  comparative  negligence  was  substituted  for 
the  defense  of  contributory  negligence,  and  the  negligence  of  the 
injured  person  was  to  be  considered  by  the  jury  only  as  an  element 
in  reducing  the  amount  of  damages.  By  the  amended  Wisconsin 
act,  contributory  negligence  is  now  abrogated  in  that  State. 

The  increased  liability  upon  employers  by  the  removal  of  the 
common  law  defenses  would  undoubtedly  have  been  brought  about 
by  legislation  even  in  the  absence  of  the  alternative  of  an  elective 
compensation  act.  The  tendency  of  legislation  being  toward  the 
ultimate  elimination  of  these  defenses,  their  removal  can  not  truly 
be  regarded  as  a  means  of  compelling  employers  to  accept  the  com- 
pensation act;  it  was  the  natural  outcome  of  the  revolt  against  the 
existing  liability  law.  Not  only  is  this  evidenced  by  several  State 
laws  but  by  the  Federal  law  covering  the  liability  of  railroad  com- 
panies to  interstate  employees,  as  under  the  latter,  without  the 
alternative  of  a  compensation  act,  the  assumption  of  risk  and  the 
fellow-servant  rule  have  been  removed  as  defenses  and  the  doctrine 
of  comparative  negligence  substituted  for  contributory  negligence. 

VII.  EXTENT  TO  WHICH  COMPENSATION  HAS  BEEN  ADOPTED. 

Legislation  for  compensation  received  its  real  start  in  the  United 
States  in  the  creation  by  the  New  York  Legislature  in  1909  of  a 
commission  to  study  the  subject  of  employers'  liability  and  the  causes 
of  industrial  accidents.  That  commission  reported  to  the  legislature 
two  bills.  One  provided  for  compulsory  compensation  in  certain 
specified  hazardous  employments.  This  act  as  passed  did  not  take 
the  place  of  the  employers'  liability  law,  but  was  an  addition  to  it, 
the  workman  having  his  option  after  the  accident  either  to  accept 

30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2 2 


18  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

compensation  under  the  act  or  to  assert  his  rights  under  the  liability 
law.  The  second  bill  modified  the  employer's  defenses  by  abrogat- 
ing the  assumption  of  risk,  placing  upon  the  defendant  the  burden 
of  proof  as  to  contributory  negligence,  and  considerably  modifying 
the  fellow-servant  rule,  and  provided  for  elective  compensation,  which 
became  the  sole  remedy  where  it  was  accepted  by  both  the  employer 
and  the  employee.  The  first  of  these  two  acts  was  declared  uncon- 
stitutional in  the  court  of  appeals  in  the  Ives  case.  The  second,  or 
elective,  act  was  accepted  by  a  few  employers  only,  owing  largely  to 
the  fact  that  it  required  a  separate  acceptance  as  between  the  employer 
and  each  employee,  with  acknowledgment  before  a  notary  public. 
However,  a  great  many  employers  in  New  York  accepted  the  spirit 
of  the  act  and  attempted  to  adjust  their  accident  cases  in  accord- 
ance therewith,  although  of  course  the  employees  in  case  of  injury 
were  not  bound  by  it  and  could  refuse  to  accept  the  compensation  and 
assert  their  remedy  under  the  liability  law. 

New  York  adopted,  in  December,  1913,  a  compulsory  compensation 
act  covering  certain  specified  employments.  As  already  stated,  in 
the  22  States  which  have  adopted  the  principle,  all  of  the  compensa- 
tion acts  in  operation  are  elective  except  those  of  New  York  and 
Washington  and  the  new  acts  of  Ohio  and  California,  which  went 
into  operation  January  1,  1914.  New  York,  California,  and  Ohio 
amended  their  constitutions  so  as  to  admit  the  adoption  of  their 
compulsory  acts.  The  constitutionality  of  the  Washington  act,  sus- 
tained by  the  supreme  court  of  that  State  without  the  aid  of  a  State 
constitutional  amendment,  is  now  a  question  before  the  Federal  courts. 

Compensation  acts  were  adopted  by  the  following  22  States  in  the 
order  named :  New  York,1  Washington,  Kansas,  Nevada,  New  Jersey, 
California,  Wisconsin,  Ohio,  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  Illinois, 
Michigan,  Maryland,  Rhode  Island,  Arizona,  West  Virginia,  Oregon, 
Texas,  Iowa,  Nebraska,  Minnesota,  and  Connecticut. 

Activities  at  present  are  indicated  by  commissions  existing  in  the 
following  States,  where,  with  the  exception  of  Maryland,  no  compen- 
sation legislation  has  been  enacted:  Colorado,  which  has  issued  a 
report;  Idaho,  Indiana,  Louisiana,  Maine,  Maryland,  which  has 
reported  and  recommended  a  bill;  Missouri,  North  Dakota,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Tennessee,  and  Vermont,  as  well  as  Porto  Rico.  In  Kentucky, 
Mississippi,  and  Oklahoma  public  officials,  manufacturers'  associa- 
tions, or  labor  unions  have  taken  the  lead  in  agitating  or  preparing 
bills  to  be  introduced  at  an  early  time. 

In  New  Jersey  the  commission  which  was  responsible  for  the  pres- 
ent act  has  continued  its  existence  to  recommend  amendments. 
Delaware  and  Montana  had  commissions  which  dissolved  without 
definite  results. 

Lists  of  boards  of  award  where  laws  have  been  enacted,  and  work- 
men's compensation  commissions  in  States  where  there  are  no  laws, 
will  be  found  in  Appendix  No.  9. 

The  total  number  of  employers  and  employees  in  these  States  who 
have  accepted  the  compensation  acts  can  not  be  definitely  ascer- 
tained. In  Washington  the  law  is  compulsory  and  covers  about 

i  Declared  unconstitutional.  Present  New  York  law  enacted  December,  1913;  in  effect  for  administrative 
purposes  Jan.  1,  1914,  and  for  compensation  payments  July  1,  1914.  The  Montana  law  passed  in  1909— 
afterwards  declared  unconstitutional— was  the  first  legislative  act  where  liability  to  pay  was  based  on  the 
hazard  of  a  particular  employment.  The  Maryland  act  of  1902,  also  declared  unconstitutional,  provided 
only  for  death  benefits  to  dependents. 


EEPOET   OF   COMMISSION.  19 

7,000  employers  and  160,000  employees;  in  Michigan  10,760  employ- 
ers and  475,408  employees  have  accepted  the  act;  in  California  1,100 
employers  and  100,000  employees;  in  New  Hampshire  21  employers 
and  23,000  employees;  in  Ohio  2,711  employers  and  171,113  em- 
ployees; in  Massachusetts  17,000  employers  and  650,000  employees; 
and  in  Rhode  Island  2,018  employers  and  140,000  employees.  In 
West  Virginia,  the  act  has  been  accepted  by  1,465  employers,  cover- 
ing 143,706  workmen,  73,253  of  whom  are  engaged  in  coal  mining. 
In  Massachusetts  a  fraction  over  80  per  cent  of  the  accidents  occur- 
ring in  industry  during  the  year  ending  July  1,  1913,  came  under 
the  compensation  act. 

In  Massachusetts  among  those  who  have  not  accepted  the  act  are 
several  large  employers  who  desire  to  carry  their  own  risk,  and  wko 
maintain  the  plan  of  compensation  established  by  themselves,  which 
they  could  not  do  if  under  the  act.  Their  employees,  however,  while 
thus  being  given  the  benefit  of  a  plan  similar  to  that  of  compensa- 
tion are,  as  a  result  of  the  employer  not  having  accepted  the  actual 
liberty  to  refuse  the  offered  compensation  and  sue  under  the  liability 
law  with  the  employer's  defenses  removed. 

The  original  Wisconsin  act  was  accepted  by  2,028  employers  and 
149,164  employees.  During  the  year  ending  June  30,  1913,  44.6  per 
cent  of  the  accidents  reported  were  under  the  compensation  act. 
Under  the  new  Wisconsin  act,  which  became  effective  June  30,  1913, 
all  employers  and  employees  are  covered  unless  they  elect  to  reject 
the  act;  consequently  it  can  not  be  ascertained  just  how  many  em- 

Eloyers  and  employees  are  under  the  act.  However,  it  is  reported 
y  the  Wisconsin  Industrial  Commission  that  in  the  month  of  Decem- 
ber, 1913,  95.9  per  cent  of  all  accidents  happening  in  industries  of 
Wisconsin  were  under  compensation. 

In  Kansas  the  compensation  act  has  been  rejected  by  500  employ- 
ers; in  Nevada  by  100;  in  Minnesota  by  44,  employing  about  2,000 
persons,  while  it  is  estimated  by  the  State  department  of  labor  that 
about  250,000  employees  are  subject  to  the  act. 

The  California  compulsory  act  is  estimated  as  covering  600,000 
additional  employees  since  January  1,  1914;  the  compulsory  Ohio 
act  covered  approximately  1,000,000  after  January  1;  while  the  New 
York  act  will  probably  cover  close  to  2,000,000  after  July  1  next. 

The  Oregon  act  will  not  go  into  effect  until  July  1,  1914,  its  opera- 
tion having  been  suspended  by  a  referendum,  the  vote  on  which  was 
taken  at  the  last  election  and  the  act  approved.  The  Nebraska  act 
is  suspended  by  a  referendum,  but  the  vote  will  be  taken  on  this  law 
during  the  year  1914. 

REASONS   FOB   ACCEPTING   OR   REJECTING   THE    ELECTIVE   ACTS. 

Employers  accepting  the  law  gave  to  the  commission  various  rea- 
sons for  so  doing.  To  many,  a  belief  in  the  principle  of  compensation 
seemed  sufficient,  while  others  had  convinced  themselves  that  it  makes 
for  certainty  in  cost  and  removes  litigation. 

In  only  a  few  States  did  a  large  proportion  of  the  employers  reject 
the  act.  The  reasons  quite  frequently  show  that  the  rejection  was 
due  more  to  a  lack  of  interest  in  the  subject  or  to  a  want  of  knowledge 
of  the  law  than  to  any  positive  objection. 


20  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

In  States  where  employers  gave  well-defined  reasons  for  their  fail- 
ure to  accept  the  law,  in  general  they  stated  that  they  had  no  oppo- 
sition to  the  principle  of  workmen's  compensation  but,  in  fact,  that 
they  favored  it,  and  their  sole  objections  were  to  the  form  of  the  law. 
In  New  Hampshire  and  Kansas,  where  a  large  proportion  of  the 
employers  refused  to  accept  the  compensation  act,  the  main  reason 
given  was  that  it  was  "a  one-sided  affair"  in  that  if  the  employer 
elected  to  come  under  it  he  would  be  bound  by  the  act  while  the 
employee  had  an  option  after  the  accident  of  accepting  the  compen- 
sation or  asserting  his  rights  under  the  liability  law.  (See  Section 
XVII,  where  this  subject  is  discussed.)  The  employers  of  Ohio  were 
very  slow  in  accepting  the  act,  stating  as  their  reason  that,  as  they 
would  ba  compelled  to  take  their  insurance  in  the  State  fund,  they 
would  be  deprived  of  any  option  in  insuring.  (See  Section  XXI V, 
where  the  method  of  insurance  is  discussed.) 

The  reasons  for  accepting  or  rejecting  the  law  presented  to  the 
commission  by  many  employers  are  shown  in  Appendix  No.  6. 

VHI.  TREND  OF  LEGISLATION. 

Important  changes  in  the  compensation  acts,  indicating  a  general 
trend  in  legislation,  are,  in  Illinois,  the  creation  of  an  industrial  acci- 
dent board  to  administer  the  law  and  broadening  the  scope  of  the 
law  to  cover  practically  all  except  casual  employments;  in  California, 
change  in  the  waiting  period  from  one  week  to  two  weeks,  increasing 
the  benefits  for  total  permanent  disability  to  last  through  life,  and 
making  the  principal  contractor  liable  to  the  employees  of  a  subcon- 
tractor; in  Ohio  and  California,  changes  from  an  elective  to  a  com- 
pulsory system  through  new  acts;  in  New  York,  the  enactment  of  a 
compulsory  law;  and  in  California  and  Wisconsin  the  acts  made  the 
exclusive  remedy.  The  new  California  act  recognizes  the  principle 
that  injuries  to  employers  who  perform  labor  incidental  to  their  occu- 
pations and  the  members  of  the  families  of  such  employers  engaged 
in  the  same  occupation  are  properly  chargeable  to  the  cost  of  oper- 
ating the  business  and  to  that  end  provides  that  the  State  Compen- 
sation Insurance  Fund  may,  in  issuing  its  policies,  include  such  em- 
ployers and  such  members  of  their  families.  (As  to  suggestions  made 
to  the  commission  for  changes  in  the  law,  see  Appendix  No.  7.) 

IX.  SATISFACTION  WITH  COMPENSATION  ACTS  AS  AGAINST  LIA- 
BILITY LAWS. 

The  commission  found  a  growing  satisfaction  with  compensation 
laws  among  both  employers  and  workmen.  All  suggestions  for 
changes  related  to  the  compensation  law,  no  one  seriously  thinking 
of  repealing  it  or  going  back  to  the  old  liability  system.  Persons  at- 
tended the  conferences  who  had  originally  opposed  the  compensation 
plan  but  who,  after  experience  under  it,  expressed  their  warm  ap- 
proval of  its  principles.  Among  these,  beside  both  large  and  small 
employers,  were  workmen.  A  large  employer  in  the  State  of  Wis- 
consin said: 

I  believe  the  employers  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin  are  satisfied  with  the  provisions 
of  the  workmen's  compensation  act  as  applicable  to  this  State.  Many  of  tnem  have 
availed  themselves  of  the  provisions  of  the  act  from  the  inception  thereof;  and  that 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  21 

number  has  been  largely  increased  since  the  legislature  of  the  State  has  adopted 
amendments  thereto  which  were  deemed  necessary.  Our  corporation  accepted  the 
act  when  it  took  effect  in  this  State.  While  there  are  some  provisions  of  the  law  as 
it  now  exists  which  many  of  us  would  like  amended,  they  are  of  a  minor  nature  and 
do  not  affect  the  bill  seriously  as  a  whole.  Generally  speaking,  I  would  say  the 
manufacturers  and  employers  throughout  the  State  are  satisfied  with  the  act. 

A  representative  of  the  California  State  Federation  of  Labor,  in 
discussing  this  point,  said: 

In  going  to  our  State  legislature  two  years  ago,  I  felt  that  labor  should  ask  for  the 
elimination  of  the  common  law  defenses  rather  than  compensation  laws,  but  my 
experience  and  the  knowledge  acquired  during  the  past  two  years  at  the  sessions  of 
the  State  legislature  has  convinced  me  that  labor  was  in  error  and  that  an  adequate 
compensation  law  is  to  be  preferred  to  a  wide  open  liability  law. 

The  very  fact  that  the  elective  laws  have  been  so  generally  adopted 
voluntarily  by  employers  shows  that  there  is  a  general  satisfaction 
with  this  principle  and  that  employers  look  upon  the  law  as  a  fair 
and  proper  method  of  adjusting  losses  occurring  through  industrial 
accidents.  The  commission  was  unable  to  find  cases  of  employees 
refusing  to  accept  the  law  after  their  employers  had  accepted  it; 
nor  did  they  find  any  attempt  to  induce  employees  to  reject  the  law 
after  their  employers  had  come  under  the  act.  It  was  generally 
conceded  that  the  operation  of  the  law  is  improving  the  relation 
between  employer  and  employee  and  that  it  has  removed  a  great 
source  of  annoyance,  irritation,  and  social  injustice. 

That  there  is  basis  for  the  satisfaction  expressed  by  workmen,  is 
illustrated  by  the  condition  in  Massachusetts  where  it  appears  from 
the  report  of  the  Massachusetts  Industrial  Accident  Board  for  1913 
that  the  dependents  of  the  employees  killed  and  who  were  not  under 
the  compensation  act  received  in  toto  only  about  one-third  of  the 
amount  they  would  have  received  had  they  been  under  the  com- 
pensation act.  In  its  report  the  board  states  that  had  the  employees 
referred  to  been  under  the  workmen's  compensation  act,  a  total  of 
$164,488  would  have  been  due  either  for  funeral  expenses  or  as  pay- 
ments to  dependents,  whereas  only  $60,322.42  was  paid — an  average 
payment  in  each  case  of  $701.42,  as  against  the  average  sum  of 
$1,900.57  that  would  have  been  due  the  beneficiaries,  had  the  em- 
ployees been  under  the  compensation  act. 

X.  EFFECT   UPON   RELATION   BETWEEN  EMPLOYER   AND 

EMPLOYEE. 

The  introduction  of  workmen's  compensation  laws  has  opened  the 
way  for  the  establishment  of  more  amicable  relations  between  em- 
ployers and  employees.  In  their  operation,  the  acts  necessarily 
provide  an  opportunity  for  workmen  and  employers  to  meet  and 
consider  questions  relating  to  compensation  and  accident  prevention. 
Indirectly,  these  meetings,  promoting  as  they  do  acquaintanceship 
between  employers  and  workmen,  lead  to  the  discussion  of  other 
questions  which  affect  their  common  interests.  As  a  consequence, 
many  of  the  causes  of  misunderstanding  which  arose  because  of  the 
failure  of  the  two  sides  to  confer  have  been  removed,  and  a  better 
and  mutually  advantageous  relationship  has  been  established. 

Under  the  old  system  the  litigation  growing  out  of  industrial  acci- 
dents led  to  discord  and  friction,  with  injurious  consequences  which 


22  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

could  not  be  calculated.  The  tendency  was  distinctly  to  drive  the 
employer  and  the  employee  farther  apart.  In  contrast  to  that  sys- 
tem, trie  operation  of  compensation  laws  has  tended  to  bring  about  a 
communty  of  interest  and  a  difference  in  sentiment  that  has  improved 
even  the  trade  relationship.  Compensation  in  an  industry  has  been 
a  benefit  to  the  whole  of  it  and  all  engaged  in  it. 

The  testimony  on  this  point  is  uniform.  Its  significance  may  be 
seen  in  the  following  quotations: 

The  secretary  of  the  Michigan  State  Federation  of  Labor,  speaking 
of  the  Michigan  act,  said: 

I  might  say  personally  that  I  feel  that  it  is  the  most  gratifying  law  that  we  laborers 
ever  had.  People  that  were  fighting  the  law  at  the  very  beginning  are  to-day  most 
ardent  supporters  of  it. 

The  Michigan  district  president  of  the  United  Mine  Workers  said  to 
the  commission: 

Regarding  the  importance  of  this  act  in  the  field  generally,  it  is  thought  to  be  the 
best  thing  possible  for  the  miners  of  Michigan.  There  are  changes  that  we  would  like 
to  make,  but  I  want  to  say  this:  It  has  tended  to  make  mine  owners  more  careful,  and 
I  am  glad  to  say  that  the  last  fatal  accident  that  occurred  in  Michigan  was  in  November 
(1912).  The  companies  are  more  careful  than  ever  they  have  been  in  seeing  that  the 
mines  are  safe. 

An  officer  of  a  building  trades  employers'  association  in  Michigan 
said  that  he  did  not  believe  that  any  of  the  employers  liked  the  pro- 
visions of  the  old  (liability)  law,  for  the  reason  that  it  brought  no  end 
of  trouble. 

Under  the  compensation  act,  the  conditions  which  we  are  to  meet  are  known  to  all, 
and  they  are  very  specific  in  their  character.  For  that  reason  we  know  just  how  to 
take  care  of  them  in  connection  with  the  transaction  of  our  business.  While  it  costs 
the  employer  more  money  under  the  terms  of  the  new  law,  still  the  workmen,  in  the 
case  of  injuries  sustained,  receive  more  money  under  the  compensation  law  than  they 
did  under  the  provisions  of  the  old  liability  law. 

An  official  of  a  large  company  in  Massachusetts  wrote  to  the 
commission : 

We  are  vitally  interested  in  this  sub ject,  not  only  as  employers  of  labor  but  as  private 
citizens  and  are  always  looking  for  helpful  information  from  any  and  every  source.  We 
accepted  the  workmen's  compensation  act  July  1,  1912,  have  carefully  studied  same, 
and  although  we  are  not  prepared  at  this  time  to  approve  all  provisions  of  this  law,  we 
do  believe  it  has  created  a  great  improvement  in  the  handling  of  accident  claims,  not 
only  from  the  employers'  but  also  from  the  employees'  standpoint. 

A  representative  of  a  large  industrial  enterprise  in  New  Jersey  wrote 
to  the  commission,  saying : 

When  the  New  Jersey  act  became  effective  on  July  4, 1911,  we  had  at  our  command  a 
record  of  all  accidents  occurring  in  pur  works  for  a  period  of  13  years,  together  with  the 
length  of  disability  of  each  case,  this  data  having  been  gathered  by  our  mutual  benefit 
association  in  its  work.  With  this  information  at  hand,  we  were  able  easily  to  determine 
the  amount  of  compensation  we  would  be  obliged  to  pay  under  the  act  in  any  average 
year.  The  operation  of  the  act  in  our  case  has  thus  far  been  quite  satisfactory.  We  are 
making  payments  ourselves  directly  to  our  employees,  and  as  compared  with  insurance 
against  liability  and  compensation  the  method  is  of  considerable  financial  advantage 
to  us  and,  we  believe,  agreeable  to  our  employees. 

From  a  Washington  logging  company: 

Nothing  causes  more  unrest  in  this  United  States  than  this  insuring  against  damage 
suits.  As  it  stands  now,  the  injured  party  is  well  taken  care  of.  We  treat  him  well, 
and  he  in  turn  treats  us  well;  we  are  his  friends  and  he  is  our  friend,  and  his  friends  are 
also  our  friends. 


REPORT   OF    COMMISSION.  23 

From  a  member  of  the  accident  committee  of  the  National  Associa- 
tion of  Manufacturers: 

We  came  under  the  general  compensation  act  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislature,  almost 
immediately  after  its  passage.  Experience  fully  confirmed  our  entire  confidence  in 
that  act;  it  has  led  to  safety  measures  that  greatly  lessen  the  loss  by  accidents;  it  gives 
far  better  protection  than  any  insurance  policy  that  a  company  would  be  likely  to 
purchase  or  to  issue. 

From  a  lumber  employer  in  Washington : 

We  like  the  compensation  law  for  the  reason  that  we  can  now  care  for  our  employees 
at  the  time  of  the  accident,  when  they  most  need  help.  Prior  to  passage,  we  dared  not 
help  or  talk  to  a  man  hurt,  as  any  utterance  of  sympathy  or  any  help  would  be  taken  as 
the  admission  of  negligence  and  used  against  us  in  lawsuits  by  ambulance  chasing 
attorneys. 

XI.  EFFECT  ON  ACCIDENT  PREVENTION. 

It  was  the  general  opinion  of  employers  and  workmen  that  the 
adoption  of  compensation  acts  has  resulted  in  greatly  improving 
the  safeguarding  of  machinery  and  industrial  processes.  Probably 
compensation  has  had  an  indirect,  more  than  a  direct,  effect  upon  the 
prevention  of  accidents,  as  it  has  drawn  attention  to  the  subject  and 
aroused  the  interest  of  both  employers  and  employees. 

A  Detroit  (Mich.)  employer  said: 

It  is  also,  in  pur  opinion,  a  preventive  measure  of  the  most  advanced  type,  not 
because  it  requires  the  employer  specifically  to  undertake  measures  of  safety,  but 
because  the  employer  will  find  it  highly  profitable  to  install  such  measures,  and  in 
all  ways  to  use  his  intelligence  both  in  the  physical  equipment  and  policing  of  his 
factory  and  force  so  as  to  reduce  accidents  to  a  minimum. 

A  Wisconsin  manufacturer  said : 

Prior  to  the  passing  of  the  compensation  act,  our  company  had  given  considerable 
attention  to  safety  devices,  and  the  plant  at  this  time  is  quite  thoroughly  equipped 
with  such  safeguards.  Our  methods  in  this  respect  have  been  to  issue  books  of  rules 
to  every  employee  and  foreman  regarding  safety  and  to  have  periodically  (monthly)  an 
inspection  made  of  the  plant  by  committees  appointed  from  the  employees.  These 
committees  are  made  up  of  different  men  selected  prior  to  such  inspection,  and  in 
this  way  fresh  minds  and  eyes  are  brought  to  bear  on  the  possibilities  of  greater  safe- 
guarding and  additional  safety  devices.  We  believe  that  the  compensation  act  has 
undoubtedly  resulted  in  far  greater  care  on  the  part  of  the  employers  and,  I  am 
pleased  to  state  from  personal  observation,  on  the  part  of  employees. 

A  California  employer  said,  in  replying  to  the  inquiry  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  compensation  act  had  resulted  in  greater  care  and  safe- 
guarding on  the  part  of  employers: 

I  should  say  that  unquestionably  such  is  the  case.  Of  course  I  can  speak  authori- 
tatively only  in  so  far  as  our  industry  is  concerned,  but  I  am  led  to  believe  that  it  is 
true  in  practically  every  line  of  manufacture  throughout  the  States  where  workmen's 
compensation  laws  have  been  passed.  I  might  add  in  this  connection  that  before  the 
compensation  act  was  passed  in  California  our  company,  I  believe,  made  every  reason- 
able effort  to  keep  their  plant  guarded  against  accidents  and  injuries  to  their  em- 
ployees, we  at  all  times  trying  to  keep  pur  machines  equipped  with  the  latest  and 
most  up-to-date  devices  for  the  prevention  of  accidents  to  our  employees;  but  it  is 
readily  understood,  I  contend,  that  legislation  such  as  was  passed  in  California  pro- 
viding a  compulsory  compensation  to  be  paid  to  injured  workmen  must  necessarily 
draw  the  attention  of  all  employers  and  manufacturers  of  machines  of  all  kinds  to  the 
possibilities  of  further  guarding  and  protecting  these  machines,  so  as  to  reduce  to  a 
minimum  the  possibility  of  accidents  to  employees.  Since  the  passing  of  the  com- 
pensation act  there  have  been  offered  to  us  many  suggestions  and  devices  for  further 
safeguarding  our  employees.  We  have  in  cases  where  these  suggestions  and  recom- 
mendations were  found  practical  complied  with  them.  As  to  whether  or  not  the 
additional  precautions  taken  have  tended  to  reduce  accidents  in  our  plant  I  am  hardly 
prepared  to  say  yes  or  no.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  believe  that  our  statistics  will  show 


24  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

that  since  the  compensation  act  went  into  effect  we  have  had  more  accidents  in  our 
plant  than  we  had  for  the  corresponding  period  previous  to  the  passage  of  the  law. 
I  may  say,  however,  that  I  believe  the  severity  of  the  accidents  has  been  considerably 
less.  Most  of  the  accidents  that  we  have  had  since  the  compensation  law  went  into 
effect  have  been  very  slight,  usually  caused,  I  believe,  by  the  carelessness  of  the 
employee  in  the  performance  of  his  duties. 

In  our  opinion  these  accidents  are  bound  to  happen,  no  matter  how  carefully  these 
manufacturing  plants  are  guarded.  There  is  a  certain  element  of  risk  in  connection 
with  operating  a  manufacturing  business  that  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  hazard  of  the 
business  itself,  and  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  this  risk  can  ever  be  entirely  eliminated. 
It  occurs  to  me.  in  connection  with  the  above,  that  it  would  be  appreciated  by  many 
manufacturers  throughout  the  country  if  it  were  possible  to  establish  a  board  or  a 
bureau  of  some  sort  whose  sole  business  it  would  be  to  interest  themselves  in  any  and 
all  devices,  whether  patented  or  not,  having  to  do  with  the  further  safeguarding  of 
all  kinds  of  machines  used  in  the  manufacturing  industries  of  this  country.  I  am 
sure  that  everyone  connected  with  our  industry  would  welcome  any  suggestions  that 
would  tend  to  reduce  the  chances  of  accidents  in  their  plants. 

The  president  of  the  Michigan  State  Federation  of  Labor  said  that 
the  theory  of  compensation  is  not  alone  the  paying  of  money  to  an 
injured  employee  or  to  his  dependents.  It  means  the  prevention  of 
accidents  in  the  first  place.  In  Michigan  during  the  first  year  the 
compensation  act  was  in  effect  fatal  accidents  were  reduced  from  2 
to  less  than  1  £  per  day,  and  during  the  last  six  months  of  the  opera- 
tion of  the  f,ct  fatal  accidents  were  reduced  to  less  than  1  per  day. 
He  stated  that  in  Michigan  nonf atal  accidents  had  been  reduced  from 
100  per  day  to  less  than  65  per  day.  , 

A  member  of  the  Industrial  Accident  Board  of  Massachusetts  said: 

Taking  up  the  matter  of  accident  prevention,  let  us  see  what  this  would  mean  to 
Massachusetts  if  this  50  per  cent  of  waste  could  be  eliminated.  There  were  476  deaths 
from  industrial  accidents  during  the  year  beginning  with  July  1,  1912,  and  ending 
on  June  30,  1913.  During  the  same  period  there  were  89,694  accidents  reported  to  the 
industrial  accident  board.  There  were  10,568  accidents  which  resulted  in  the  laying 
up  of  the  worker  for  a  period  of  from  two  to  four  weeks.  There  were  10,540  accidents 
which  resulted  in  the  laying  up  of  the  worker  through  total  incapacity  during  a  period 
of  from  four  weeks  to  six  months.  If  one-half  of  these  accidents  were  preventable, 
nearly  250  lives  might  have  been  saved  and  the  wage-earners  in  250  families  would 
still  be  at  work  providing  for  those  dependent  upon  them,  while  an  army  of  em- 
ployees would  have  been  kept  at  work  all  the  time  instead  of  being  laid  up  and  en- 
tirely or  partially  incapacitated  through  accidents  that  were  preventable.  There 
were  186,101  weeks'  work  lost  during  that  year,  and  4,342  persons  were  constantly 
disabled  during  that  entire  period. 

XH.  INSURANCE  OF  EMPLOYERS  DOING  BUSINESS  IN  DIFFERENT 

STATES. 

The  commission  received  considerable  complaint  from  employers 
regarding  their  difficulty  in  securing  insurance  on  employees  operating 
outside  of  the  State.  Some  of  their  workmen  are  at  tunes  sent  out 
of  the  State  to  install  machinery  or  aid  in  construction  work,  while 
others,  resident  of  a  foreign  State,  are  employed  there  temporarily. 
The  Massachusetts  Supreme  Court  (case  of  American  Mutual  Lia- 
bility Insurance  Co.,  insurer,  petitioner;  Gould,  employee;  B.  F. 
Sturtevant  Co.,  employer)  in  holding  that  its  law  has  no  effect  out- 
side of  the  State  and  that  if  employees  are  to  be  compensated  it 
must  be  under  the  law  of  the  State  in  which  they  are  employed,  said 
that  all  considerations  combined  to— 

forbid  the  inference  that  the  legislature  having  used  plain,  unmistakable  words  to 
that  end,  intended  our  act  to  govern  the  rights  of  the  parties  as  to  injuries  received 
in  any  other  jurisdiction. 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  25 

On  communicating  with  the  various  insurance  companies,  it  was 
ascertained  that  their  practice  is  to  insure  all  of  an  employer's  work- 
men when  he  asks  for  it,  even  though  they  are  at  work  out  of  the 
State,  but  in  as  much  as  they  are  to  be  compensated  according  to  the 
law  of  the  State  hi  which  they  are  at  work,  this  necessitates  fixing 
different  rates  of  premium  and,  as  a  result,  the  policies  are  written 
separately,  the  employer  being  required  to  keep  a  separate  pay  roll 
covering  the  employees  in  each  State  for  the  purpose  of  arriving  at 
the  amount  of  premium.  This  proceeding  raises  some  difficulty  in 
the  case  of  State  insurance  funds,  and  also  quite  frequently  in  mutual 
insurance  companies,  as  both  are  limited  to  insuring  employees  under 
the  law  of  a  particular  State  and,  therefore,  can  not  issue  policies 
covering  any  of  the  employer's  workmen  outside  of  the  State.  This 
is  not  true  of  all  mutual  companies,  but  applies  to  those  that  have 
been  organized  solely  for  the  purpose  of  insuring  under  the  compen- 
sa^ion  law  of  a  particular  State. 

XIII.  NONRESIDENT  ALIENS. 

Some  of  the  States  attempt  either  to  deny  compensation  to  non- 
resident alien  dependents  or  to  qualify  and  limit  the  benefits.  While 
this  question  was  not  largely  discussed  by  those  whom  the  commission 
met  during  its  investigation,  considerable  complaint  was  made  by 
employers  as  to  the  difficulty  of  preventing  imposition  in  the  case  of 
individuals  claiming  to  be  foreign  dependents. 

It  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  a  good  condition  of  this  country  if 
an  incentive  be  given  to  employ  foreigners  with  nonresident  families, 
and  such  incentive  would  exist  only  where  in  case  of  injuries  foreign 
families  would  not  be  entitled  to  compensation.  It  has  been  said 
that  it  certainly  is  not  going  to  make  for  careful  operation,  if  those  in 
charge  of  an,  undertaking  feel  that  a  large  part  of  the  fatal  injuries  to 
the  workers  will  not  cost  the  employers  anything,  since  the  depend- 
ents of  the  victims  live  abroad.  There  is  possibly  some  justification 
for  basing  the  amount  of  benefit  to  a  nonresident  beneficiary  upon 
the  cost  of  living  hi  his  foreign  domicile,  and  there  has  been  a  tend- 
ency in  the  various  States  to  reduce  the  amount  instead  of  denying 
all  compensation  to  nonresident  aliens.  Consequently,  an  early  rule, 
adopted  in  the  New  Hampshire  statute,  of  excluding  nonresidents  of 
the  United  States  was  not  followed  by  the  other  States.  Instead, 
California  limits  nonresidents  to  one-half  of  the  regular  benefits; 
Kansas  limits  them  to  $750;  Minnesota  and  Michigan  give  them  fall 
benefits;  Nebraska  permits  commutation  by  paying  two-thirds;  and 
New  York  one-half  of  the  total  amounts  of  future  payments;  and 
Washington  excludes  all  except  father  and  mother,  except  wh^re 
otherwise  provided  by  treaty.  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  and  West  Vir- 
ginia provide  that  payments  for  nonresident  aliens  be  made  to  the 
consular  representatives  of  foreign  countries. 

Among  the  wage  earners  the  feeling  is  general  that  laws  should  pro- 
vide for  the  payment  of  compensation  to  alien  dependents  of  work- 
men who  have  been  injured  or  killed  in  the  course  of  their  employ- 
ment. This  attitude  is  based  upon  two  considerations:  First,  that 
justice  demands  that  such  dependents  should  be  provided  for  with- 


26  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

out  regard  to  the  place  or  the  country  in  which  they  reside;  secondly, 
that  a  law  which  does  not  provide  for  alien  depen  lents  places  a  pre- 
mium upon  the  employment  of  immigrants. 

XIV.  EMPLOYMENTS  COVERED. 

One  of  the  principal  purposes  of  compensation  being  to  eliminate 
the  technicalities  and  injustices  of  the  old  liability  law,  it  is  evident 
that  an  act  awarding  compensation  for  an  injury  in  one  industry  and 
not  for  a  similar  injury  hi  another  industry  not  only  leads  to  confu- 
sion but  breeds  a  disrespect  for  the  law.  It  must  fall  strangely  upon 
the  ears  of  a  widow  to  say,  "  You  and  your  children  shall  not  receive 
compensation  for  the  death  of  your  husband,  although  your  neighbor, 
another  widow,  and  her  children  receive  compensation,  the  reason 
being  that  your  husband's  work  was  not  hazardous."  In  the  words 
of  one  of  the  representatives  of  the  Illinois  Steel  Co.  before  the  com- 
mission at  Chicago : 

The  workman  would  not  be  likely  to  understand  why  one  man  should  receive 
compensation  and  another  should  not  receive  it. 

This  discrimination  exists  in  the  State  of  Washington,  where  the 
compensation  act  includes  only  certain  specified  hazardous  employ- 
ments. For  instance,  teamsters  engaged  in  one  kind  of  employment 
are  entitled  to  compensation  under  the  act,  no  matter  how  slight  the 
injury,  whereas  teamsters  in  other  employments  are  not  so  entitled, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  injury  may  be  serious.  This 
unsatisfactory  result  is  peculiar  to  a  compensation  law  which  seeks 
to  classify  hazardous  occupations,  and  is  in  direct  contrast  with 
States  in  which  ah1  employments,  except  certain  specified  occupations, 
are  included. 

The  practical  difficulty  of  applying  an  act  limited  to  certain  so- 
called  hazardous  occupations  was  apparent  to  all  who  discussed  this 
feature  at  the  various  conferences.  It  was  well  stated  at  Cleveland 
by  the  manager  of  the  accident  and  pension  department  of  the 
American  Steel  &  Wire  Co.,  when,  in  speaking  of  the  original  Illinois 
compensation  act,  which  has  been  amended  to  cover  practically  all 
employments,  he  said: 

My  principal  objection  to  the  law  in  that  State  is  that  it  attempts  to  define  what 
may  be  hazardous  and  extra-hazardous  occupations.  In  our  Illinois  plant  we  have 
accepted  the  act  as  a  whole;  but  we  do  not  like  to  be  compelled  to  consult  an  attor- 
ney frequently  to  determine  what  may  be  called  hazardous  and  extra-hazardous 
risks.  It  is  very  annoying  to  be  compelled  to  consult  counsel  frequently  for  defini- 
tions— narrow  definitions,  as  they  may  be  termed — to  determine  the  particular  place 
where  the  law  governing  such  occupations  applies. 

Other  quotations  to  the  same  effect  might  be  added;  in  fact,  it  was 
generally  the  view  of  employers  that  a  system  of  law  that  imposed  a 
different  liability  in  different  industries  for  the  same  kind  of  an 
injury  was  impractical,  confusing,  and  unjust.  And  that  it  also  was 
expensive,  as  it  necessitated  the  employer  carrying  two  kinds  of 
insurance,  one  to  cover  compensation  cases  and  another  to  cover 
accidents  falling  under  the  liability  law.  Nowhere  did  the  commis- 
sion find  workmen  asking  for  such  a  distinction,  as  their  general 
attitude  is  that  all  industrial  accidents  should  be  covered.  (For  a 
detailed  statement  of  the  State  laws  on  this  question,  see  the  "Digest 
of  laws"  in  Appendix  No.  1.) 


BEPOBT    OP    COMMISSION.  27 

XV.  INJURIES  COVERED. 

What  injuries  ought  to  be  covered  by  a  compensation  act -is  a 
question  involving  considerable  difference  of  opinion.  Many  em- 
ployers contend  that  they  ought  not  to  be  required  to  pay  compen- 
sation for  injuries  due  to  acts  of  the  injured  employee  in  violation  of 
rules  or  orders  of  the  employer.  The  workmen,  on  the  other  hands 
contend  that  where  the  work  is  so  complicated  as  to  require  rule, 
and  orders,  the  injuries  resulting  from  the  violation  of  such  rules 
and  orders  are  really  a  part  of  the  hazard  of  the  business  and  should 
be  compensated,  as  the  workman's  mind  is  primarily  upon  his  work 
rather  than  upon  his  own  safety,  and  that,  while  to  deprive  him  of 
compensation  for  such  injuries  may  be  proper  under  a  liability  law 
based  upon  negligence,  it  has  no  place  in  a  system  of  workmen's 
compensation  in  which  fault  on  both  sides  is  ignored.  This  question 
is  much  like  that  considered  in  the  determination  as  to  whether  the 
employee  should  be  permitted  to  retain  the  common-law  remedies 
against  the  employer  for  negligence  where  the  latter  has  violated  the 
safety  statute  or  a  rule  promulgated  by  State  officials  for  the  safety 
of  working  men.  As  appears  in  Section  XVII,  employers  are  gen- 
erally opposed  to  the  retention  of  common-law  liability  even  where 
the  employer  has  violated  a  safety  statute  or  rule,  and  the  trend  of 
legislation  and  the  attitude  of  workmen  has  been  favorable  to  the 
acceptance  of  this  position.  The  recently  enacted  New  York  statute 
deals  with  both  of  these  questions  in  the  same  way.  It  grants  immu- 
nity to  the  employer  from  common-law  liability  for  his  violation  of 
safety  statutes  by  making  the  compensation  remedy  the  exclusive 
one  and  at  the  same  time  ignores  the  employee's  violation  of  a  rule 
or  order  of  the  employer  by  granting  him  compensation  for  in  juries 
except  where  the  injury  is  occasioned — 

by  the  willful  intention  of  the  injured  employee  to  bring  about  the  injury  or  death 
of  himself  or  of  another,  or  where  the  injury  results  solely  from  the  intoxication  of 
the  injured  employee  while  on  duty. 

As  will  be  seen  from  a  digest  of  the  laws  (Appendix  No.  1),  a  few 
of  the  States  still  retain  the  language  of  the  English  statute,  which 
deprives  employees  of  compensation  where  the  injury  was  caused  by 
"serious  and  willful  misconduct"  on  their  part,  or  this  in  substance. 
The  industrial  accident  boards  have  given  this  language  a  narrow 
construction,  and  its  full  scope  is  yet  to  be  determined  by  the  courts. 
In  considering  the  effect  of  this  clause  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  English  statute,  having  been  given  a  broad  construction,  and 
compensation,  as  a  result,  denied  to  many  workmen  for  injuries 
resulting  from  the  violation  of  orders  and  rules,  was  subsequently 
amended  so  as  to  prevent  the  application  of  the  words  "  serious  and 
willful  misconduct"  where  the  accident  resulted  in  serious  and  per- 
manent disablement. 

INJURIES    ARISING    OUT    OP    AND    IN    THE    COURSE    OF    EMPLOYMENT. 

Another  clause,  limiting  the  right  to  compensation  for  injuries 
"arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment,"  which  appears  in 
most  of  the  American  statutes,  has  been  the  source  of  a  great  deal 
of  litigation  in  Great  Britain  and  has  been  the  basis  of  a  considerable 


28  WORKMEN 's    COMPENSATION. 

proportion  of  the  questions  that  have  been  arbitrated  before  the 
American  commissions.  Among  those  which  have  arisen  under  this 
clause  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  are,  whether  employees 
are  entitled  to  compensation  for  injuries  in  going  to  and  from  places 
of  employment,  for  injuries  at  mealtime,  doing  forbidden  acts,  obey- 
ing unauthorized  orders,  acts  in  emergency,  saving  life  or  property, 
practical  joking  and  playing,  assault  and  battery  by  fellow  workmen, 
malicious  injuries,  acts  of  God,  injuries  to  commercial  travelers  and 
collectors,  while  receiving  pay,  and  going  after  tools.  Other  cases 
might  be  named,  but  these  are  illustrative  of  the  questions  that  arise 
under  this  provision. 

So  far  neither  of  the  above  exceptions  to  the  right  to  compensa- 
tion have  caused  much  litigation  or  controversy  in  the  various  States. 

WHAT   ARE    ACCIDENTAL   INJURIES. 

The  question  also  arises  as  to  whether  the  nature  of  the  particular 
injury  is  such  as  to  entitle  the  workman  to  compensation.  This 
brings  up  such  questions  as  occupational  diseases,  defective  medical 
treatment,  sunstroke,  frostbites,  nernia,  sprains,  overexertion,  heart 
disease,  pneumonia,  mental  shock  or  fright,  insanity,  aggravation  of 
preexisting  disease,  gas  poisoning,  blood  poisoning,  and  eiysipelas. 
Most  of  the  statutes  limit  the  right  to  compensation  to  personal  inju- 
ries "by  accident."  Massachusetts  and  Michigan  do  not  use  the 
words  "by  accident,"  but  the  statutes  of  these  States  read  " personal 
injuries  arising  out  of"  the  employment,  and  consequently  an  effort 
has  been  made  in  these  States  to  reach  certain  occupational  diseases 
arising  under  circumstances  that  might  not  be  called  "by  accident," 
and  yet  alleged  to  arise  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employment. 

In  Michigan  the  board  has  given  compensation  for  occupational 
disease.  (Case  of  Adams  v.  Acme  White  Lead  &  Color  Works; 
opinion  by  Industrial  Accident  Board  of  Michigan,  under  date  of  Oct. 
28,  1913.) 

A  member  of  the  Industrial  Accident  Board  of  Massachusetts  said: 

Turning  for  a  moment  to  the  subject  of  occupational  diseases,  dusty  trades,  indus- 
trial poisons,  and  occupational  diseases  are  responsible  for  an  annual  loss  in  the  United 
States  of  $750,000,000  through  needless  diseases  and  disablement,  and  Massachusetts 
has  its  proportion  of  this  enormous  waste.  The  great  majority  of  wage  earners  spend 
at  least  one-third  of  every  24  hours  in  the  factory,  mill,  or  shop.  Conditions  in  u.any 
of  them  are  such  that  the  worker  is  unable  to  attain  fullest  efficiency  by  reason  of 
the  conditions  which  surround  him,  and  this  has  a  direct  bearing  upon  the  number 
of  accidents  or  the  quantity  of  the  output  per  worker.  All  this  imposes  an  additional 
burden  on  the  taxpayer  and  increased  expenditures  in  our  cities  and  towns,  in  the 
departments  of  health,  charity,  education,  and  police.  It  has  a  direct  bearing  upon 
the  cost  of  production,  and  it  vitally  affects  the  pocketbook  nerve  of  the  employer 
through  high  insurance-premium  rates  under  the  workmen's  compensation  act,  through 
a  diminished  output  and  a  lack  of  efficiency,  due  to  insanitary  conditions,  over- 
crowded and  ill-planned  workshops,  and  a  lowering  of  the  vitality  of  the  workers,  so 
that  they  are  incapable  of  producing  the  best  results,  thus  limiting  the  output  and 
increasing  its  cost. 

The  Commonwealth  has,  through  its  general  court,  passed  legislation  that  will 
bring  these  conditions  to  an  end.  In  order  to  do  so  effectively  and  without  the  employ- 
ment of  harsh  methods,  Massachusetts  depends  upon  the  hearty  and  loyal  cooperation 
of  both  employers  and  employees. 

This  commission  found  a  general  feeling  among  workmen  in  favor 
of  the  granting  of  compensation  for  well-defined  occupational  diseases. 


BEPOKT    OF    COMMISSION.  29 

XVI.  CONTRACTORS'  LIABILITY  TO  EMPLOYEES  OF  SUBCON- 
TRACTORS. 

In  those  States  in  which  contractors  are  not  liable  by  statute  to 
pay  compensation  to  employees  of  subcontractors  a  good  deal  of 
confusion  arises,  as  quite  frequently  an  employee  does  not  know  that 
he  is  not  working  for  the  principal  contractor.  He  sees  notices 
posted  showing  the  principal  employer  to  be  under  the  compensation 
act,  but  when  injured  he  receives  nothing,  owing  to  the  fact  that  he 
is  working  for  a  subcontractor.  This  difference,  if  permitted  to  con- 
tinue, may  lead  to  a  subletting  of  the  dangerous  parts  of  any  work. 

The  justice  of  making  the  principal  contractor  liable  to  all  work- 
men was  generally  admitted;  in  fact,  their  attitude  on  this  question 
is  another  indication  of  the  broad  way  in  which  employers  are  meet- 
ing the  spirit  of  compensation  laws.  An  official  of  the  builders'  ex- 
change in  one  of  the  States  visited  took  the  position  that  men  might 
refuse  to  work  for  a  subcontractor  who  had  not  accepted  the  com- 
pensation act,  and  that  the  labor  unions  should  insist  upon  the  ac- 
ceptance of  th&  act  by  subcontractors.  Some  employers  have  written 
us  that  they  always  require  a  subcontractor  to  come  under  the  law. 
One  contractor  wrote  that  in  accepting  bids  he  takes  the  man  who  has 
accepted  the  compensation  act,  even  though  his  bid  was  higher.  In 
Massachusetts  an  electrical  contractor  stated:  "I  was  obliged  to 
accept  (the  act)  by  general  contractors  insisting  upon  it  before  plac- 
ing contracts  with  us."  The  result  has  been  that  the  trend  of  legis- 
lation is  toward  making  the  contractor  liable  for  compensation  to  the 
employees  of  subcontractors  where  the  latter  have  not  accepted  the 
compensation  act. 

California,  Connecticut,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Massachusetts,  and 
Nevada  have  legislated  upon  this  subject  and  have  made  the  prin- 
cipal contractor  liable  to  the  employees  of  subcontractors.  Minne- 
sota and  Nebraska  have  not  gone  so  far,  but  limit  their  statutes  to 
provisions  preventing  fraudulent  schemes  to  avoid  liability  by  letting 
out  work  on  contract. 

Evidence  was  offered  the  commission  that  such  provisions  were 
necessary.  A  representative  of  the  Structural  Iron  Workers'  Asso- 
ciation in  Michigan  said : 

I  know  where  a  large  number  of  men  have  sustained  injuries  in  connection  with  their 
work  in  this  State,  and  after  receiving  such  injuries  were  very  much  disappointed 
in  discovering  they  had  been  working  for  a  subcontractor  instead  of  the  principal. 
They  have  a  very  good  compensation  law  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  I  believe  if  the  State 
of  Michigan  had  a  law  similar  thereto  it  would  give  more  satisfaction.  There  is  a  great 
dissatisfaction  with  the  law  as  it  exists  in  this  State.  We  find  that  many  of  our  contrac- 
tors evade  the  law  in  this  respect.  Unless  the  law  is  compulsory  as  far  as  requiring 
the  employers  to  come  under  its  provisions,  I  do  not  think  it  is  of  much  advantage 
to  the  workmen.  It  is  true,  as  has  been  stated  here,  that  many  men  employed  in 
shops  and  elsewhere  are  not  familiar  with  the  provisions  of  the  law.  I  think  a  copy  of 
the  law  should  be  posted  where  men  are  employed,  so  that  every  employee  may  be- 
come familiar  with  the  requirements  of  the  law.  I  think  this  feature  of  the  law 
should  be  carefully  considered  and  the  men  employed  under  a  subcontractor  should 
be  protected. 

A  representative  of  the  hoisting  engineers  said : 

In  speaking  for  the  hoisting  engineers  in  their  dealings  with  subcontractors  I  will 
say  that  75  per  cent  of  our  men  work  under  subcontractors  and  are  therefore  not  pro- 
tected by  the  compensation  law.  Our  organization  would  recommend  that  the  law 
be  amended  whereby  the  general  contractor  be  made  responsible  for  accidents  that 
may  happen  under  the  subcontractor. 


30  WORKMEN 'S    COMPENSATION. 

The  president  of  a  building  trade  employers'  association  thus  gave 
bis  views: 

We  have  been  trying  to  educate  our  contractors  with  reference  to  the  advisability 
and  benefit  of  coming  under  the  law.  Would  it  not  be  for  the  advantage  of  the  work- 
man, for  instance,  to  see  that  the  man  for  whom  he  is  working  is  under  the  provisions 
of  the  compensation  act?  He  should  see  that  he  would  be  properly  protected  before 
he  enters  the  employ  of  any  contractor.  I  believe  that  the  principal  contractor 
and  the  workman  have  a  common  interest  whereby  they  should  see  that  the  sub- 
contractors come  under  the  act.  I  think  the  interests  of  the  contractor  and  the  em- 
§loyee  are  identical.  The  principal  employer  who  is  under  the  provisions  of  the  act 
emonstrates  by  so  doing  that  he  is  anxious  that  the  men  working  for  him  should  be 
amply  protected,  and  therefore  he  avails  himself  of  the  benefit  of  the  act,  not  for  him- 
self alone,,  but  also  for  the  benefit  and  welfare  of  the  workman  and  his  family.  It 
may  be  that  the  subcontractor  may  avail  himself  of  not  coming  under  the  law  be- 
cause of  the  fact  he  will  save  the  money  required  in  connection  with  the  necessity  of 
availing  himself  of  the  expense  incurred  by  going  under  the  act.  For  instance,  in 
bidding  on  a  piece  of  work  in  competition  with  a  man  who  is  under  the  provisions 
of  the  act  he  may  say  that  he  can  bid  cheaper  or  lower  than  the  other  man  who  ia 
under  the  act,  because  he  is  not  obliged  to  pay  the  expense  of  being  under  the  act. 
I  can  not  understand  why  a  workman  should  not  interest  himself  sufficiently  to  see 
before  he  enters  on  his  work  that  the  man  or  firm  by  whom  he  is  employed  is  under 
the  workmen's  compensation  act.  I  think  it  is  to  his  own  interest  to  acquaint  himself 
on  this  point. 

XVII.  EXCLTTSIVENESS  OP  REMEDY. 

When  workmen's  compensation  acts  were  first  written  in  this 
country,  they  retained  the  old  system  of  employers'  liability  and  added 
the  new  scheme  of  workmen's  compensation,  so  that,  after  an  acci- 
dent, an  employee  could  take  his  choice  of  accepting  the  compensa- 
tion or  suing  the  employer  under  the  employers'  liability  law.  Of 
course,  in  those  cases  in  which  there  was  no  liability,  the  employee 
would  naturally  accept  the  compensation,  while  in  cases  where  he 
felt  that  negligence  had  occurred  he  would  pursue  his  remedy  under 
the  liability  law. 

The  commission  found  that  one  of  the  prime  considerations  that 
induced  employers  to  accept  compensation  acts  was  a  desire  to  get 
away  from  the  old  system  of  litigation,  waste,  and  uncertainty,  and 
they  objected  for  this  reason  to  any  retention  of  the  old  system.  One 
of  the  early  statutes  was  that  of  New  Hampshire,  which  gave  the 
employee  his  option  after  an  accident  as  to  which  remedy  he  would 
pursue.  This  act  has  been  accepted  by  only  21  employers  in  that 
State.  One  large  employer  from  New  Hampshire  wrote: 

We  believe  that  the  fact  that  an  employee  in  New  Hampshire  has  a  right  to  elect 
after  an  accident  whether  he  will  accept  compensation  or  pursue  his  common-law  right 
of  action  is  an  exceedingly  great  detriment  and  deprives  the  act  of  much  of  its  intended 
value.  We  take  it  that  one  object  of  a  workmen's  compensation  act  is  to  render  definite 
and  easily  ascertainable  the  amount  to  which  an  injured  employee  is  entitled,  thereby 
settling  the  matter  in  his  mind  and  in  the  mind  of  his  employer  and  rendering  unneces- 
sary prolonged  controversy  or  litigation.  In  as  many  cases  as  heretofore,  the  matter 
resolves  itself  into  the  same  drawn-out  and  troublesome  controversy  that  under  the 
common  law  is  followed  upon  the  occurrence  of  accidents  in  mills  and  factories. 

Another  large  manufacturer  in  New  Hampshire  wrote  the  commis- 
sion: 

In  reference  to  our  experience  with  the  employers'  liability  and  workmen's  com- 
pensation law,  I  would  say  that  this  company  has  not  as  yet  decided  to  accept  this  law 
as  it  at  present  stands.  The  objection  that  we  find  is  the  section  that  gives 
the  employee  the  privilege  to  elect  after  an  accident  whether  he  will  accept  compensa- 
tion or  pursue  the  common-law  rights.  *  *  *  As  you  get  replies  from  other  manu- 
facturers throughout  the  State,  we  believe  you  will  find  a  great  many  who  have  taken 
the  same  view  of  the  law,  which  indicates  that  with  this  one  change  the  law  would 
prove  to  be  workable. 


BEPOBT    OF    COMMISSION.  31 

Letters  of  the  same  import  were  received  from  other  employers  in 
New  Hampshire  who  had  refused  to  accept  the  act. 

The  commission  found  that  employers,  in  discussing  this  question, 
generally  made  the  argument  that  compensation  acts  are  based  upon 
the  theory  that  the  industry  should  be  charged  with  the  cost  of 
industrial  accidents,  regardless  of  fault,  and  that  if  negligence  of  the 
injured  workman  is  to  be  ignored  and  he  is  to  recover  compensation 
regardless  of  his  acts,  then  likewise  the  employer's  negligence,  which 
in  modern  industry  is  generally  the  negligence  of  his  servants  and 
agents,  should  also  be  ignored. 

The  commission  found  that  as  employees  became  accustomed  to 
the  workings  of  compensation  acts  and  realized  that  they  were  real 
and  substantial  and  that  payments  were  made  promptly,  they  lost 
interest  in  the  question  of  employers'  liability  laws;  they  generally 
expressed  themselves  as  satisfied  with  a  good  compensation  act  and 
did  not  care  for  the  option  to  sue  under  the  liability  law.  While 
this  was  not  always  the  case,  it  is  rapidly  becoming  tne  dominating 
thought.  In  fact,  the  evolution  of  this  legislation  tends  toward 
making  the  compensation  act  an  exclusive  remedy.  While  the  early 
acts  gave  the  employee  an  option  after  an  accident  as  to  which  remedy 
he  would  pursue,  the  later  statutes  took  this  option  away  from  him 
except  in  special  cases.  In  these  they  require  that  he  shall  elect 
before  the  accident  whether  he  will  accept  the  compensation  act,  and, 
having  accepted  it,  he  is  to  be  deprived  of  any  other  remedy  except 
under  certain  specified  circumstances.  The  latest  New  YorK  statute 
not  only  pays  a  more  liberal  compensation  than  any  other  act  so  far 
adopted  but  makes  workmen's  compensation  the  exclusive  remedy. 

XVIII.  MEDICAL  AND  SURGICAL  AID. 

Prior  to  the  enactment  of  workmen's  compensation  laws,  employers 
were  not  required  to  pay  for  the  medical  services  furnished  to  in- 
jured employees  except  as  included  by  the  jury  in  fixing  the  dam- 
ages in  the  small  number  of  cases  in  which  the  employees  recovered 
damages.  Consequently,  not  only  were  employees  often  neglected 
at  the  time  that  they  needed  medical  services  but  their  physicians 
received  remuneration  only  as  the  employee  was  able  to  pay. 

Under  all  the  compensation  acts,  except  those  of  Washington  and 
New  Hampshire,  employers  are  required  to  furnish  medical  service, 
although  in  Arizona,  Kansas,  Maryland,  and  Nevada  pay  for  medical 
services  is  required  only  to  cover  the  last  illness  in  death  cases. 
In  some  States  the  statute  limits  the  services  as  to  amount  and  in 
others  as  to  length  of  time.  That  the  employee  is  entitled  to  this 
allowance  is  generally  conceded,  and  in  many  cases  the  employers 
and  insurance  companies  are  paying  a  larger  amount  than  that  fixed 
by  the  statute.  As  a  rule,  this  additional  expenditure  is  made  for 
the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  recovery  of  the  workman  so  as  to  re- 
duce the  amount  payable  as  compensation. 

The  cost  of  medical  services,  being  larger  than  was  anticipated 
when  the  statutes  were  first  enacted,  it  has  become  an  important 
item  of  expenditure. 

According  to  the  last  report  of  the  Employers'  Mutual  Liability 
Insurance  Co.  of  Wisconsin,  it  has  paid  out  and  become  liable  to  pay 
for  medical  services  about  50  per  cent  of  the  amount  that  it  has  paid 


32  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

to  injured  employees.  The  Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin 
also  states  in  its  second  annual  report  that— 

the  cost  of  medical  attendance,  including  hospital  and  nurse  hire,  lias  averaged  about 
50  per  cent  of  the  indemnity  that  has  been  paid  to  injured  employees.  On  a  basis 
of  50  per  cent  of  the  indemnity  for  medical  attendance,  there  has  been  paid  out  during 
the  year  ending  July  1, 1913,  for  medical,  surgif  al,  and  hospital  treatment  $79,594.46, 
covering  about  45  per  cent  of  the  industrial  accidents  c-f  that  State  which  come  under 
workmen's  compensation. 

From  this  it  would  appear  that  for  each  dollar  paid  to  an  injured 
workman  in  compensation  an  additional  50  cents  is  paid  to  the  doctor 
for  medical  attendance. 

According  to  statements  made  to  us  by  different  insurance  com- 
panies, the  amount  paid  by  them  for  medical  services  as  compared 
with  the  amount  paid  for  compensation  varies  greatly,  though  the 
experience  in  some  States  has  not  been  large  enough  to  give  a  true 
average.  For  Massachusetts,  one  company  reports  that  on  a  wide 
experience  the  amount  for  medical  expense  is  43.8  per  cent  of  the 
amount  paid  to  workmen;  another  company  gives  29  per  cent  and 
still  another  40  per  cent.  Naturally,  in  a  State  paying  a  high  rate 
of  compensation,  the  proportion  for  medical  attendance  will  be  less, 
and  likewise  in  a  State  haying  a  one- week  waiting  period. 

In  considering  the  medical  cost  and  the  variations  between  the 
different  percentages  here  given,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  it 
is  possible  that  in  some  of  the  reports  given  this  commission  there 
have  not  been  fully  considered  the  amounts  to  be  paid  as  compen- 
sation in  the  future  for  accidents  extending  beyond  the  year  covered. 
If  this  be  true,  the  proportion  of  medical  cost  during  the  first  year 
may  be  greater  than  it  will  be  in  succeeding  years. 

A  large  insurance  company  which  reported  to  this  commission 
a  lower  cost  of  medical  service  than  that  contained  in  other  reports 
specifically  stated  that  its  figures  were  made — 

upon  the  basis  of  the  amounts  paid,  plus  the  amounts  which  are  going  to  be  paid  as  the 
result  of  accidents.  The  amounts  have  not  been  simply  those  which  we  have  paid 
out  for  medical  attention  and  for  compensation  to  workmen,  as  this  would  lose  sight 
of  the  amounts  still  to  be  paid,  both  for  medical  attention  and  compensation  to  work- 
men on  accidents  already  reported. 

This  company  reported  to  the  commission  that  the  amount  paid 
for  medical  services  in  Massachusetts  was  29  per  cent,  Illinois  28,  and 
New  Jersey  20,  and  in  discussing  the  question  further  said : 

Although  Massachusetts  shows  a  percentage  slightly  larger  than  the  figures  of  Illi- 
nois, the  figures  do  not  show  that  the  medical  expenses  have  been  greater  in  Massa- 
chusetts— they  are  simply  greater  in  relation  to  the  scale  of  compensation  paid  to  the 
workmen.  Our  experience  under  the  other  compensation  acts  has  not  developed 
sufficiently  to  date  to  warrant  our  issuing  conclusive  figure?.  \Ve  believe,  however, 
that  the  above  percentages  are  upon  a  reliable  basis,  and  we  trust  that  they  will  be  01 
service  to  you.  "We  might  add  that  our  experience  has  shown  that  medical  cost  has 
increased  more  rapidly  than  compensation  cost  during  the  operation  of  an  act.  Your 
attention  is  called  to  the  fact  that  the  various  compensation  laws  provide  a  high  limit 
for  medical  attention,  also  a  considerable  period  of  time.  Again,  the  medical  atten- 
tion covers  a  much  larger  number  of  cases  than  does  the  compensation,  owing  to  the 
exclusion  of  one  or  two  weeks.  These  conditions  produce  the  large  amount  paid  for 
doctors'  services.  The  average  cost  per  case  in  Illinois  is  $5.90,  Massachusetts  $5.30, 
and  New  Jersey  $2.79.  The  New  Jersey  amount  is  low  owing  to  the  fact  that  this  cost 
was  low  at  the  commencement  of  writing  compensation  insurance.  The  cost  at  this 
time  is  nearly  as  high  as  that  of  Massachusetts  and  Illinois.  The  manager  of  the  claim 
department  ,*  *  *  tells  me  that  he  has  no  reason  to  believe  that  "the  doctors  are 
making  excessive  charges  *  *  *.  This  company  has  never  favored  the  doctors' 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  33 

contract  whereby  a  company  furnishes  a  doctor  for  every  district.  We  have  uniformly 
permitted  the  employer  or  the  injured  employee  to  select  his  own  doctor,  and  find 
that  has  proven  the  most  satisfactory  way  to  handle  the  matter. 

Another  insurance  company  writes  that  it  has  paid  out  in  Massa- 
chusetts $9,662.19  for  compensation  and  $3,930.59  for  medical 
services,  a  ratio  of  medical  services  to  compensation  of  40.6  per  cent. 
The  same  company  has  paid  out  in  Illinois  $33,568.24  for  Compensa- 
tion and  $13,569.84  for  medical  services,  the  ratio  being  40.4.  The 
large  percentage  of  cost  of  medical  services  is  in  part  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  as  many  of  the  disabilities  do  not  last  longer  than  two 
weeks  the  workmen  are  not  entitled  to  compensation,  while  all  of  the 
injured  are  entitled  to  a  doctor's  bill. 

The  experience  of  a  shoe  manufacturing  concern  in  Boston  illus- 
trates this  phase  of  compensation.  Of  11  accidents  occurring  in  a 
plant  of  this  company  prior  to  July  31,  1913,  only  2  required  the 
payment  of  compensation,  while  all  involved  a  medical  mil.  For 
these  11  accidents  the  total  amount  of  compensation  was  $28.93, 
while  the  total  for  medical  services  was  $84.50.  The  experience  of 
this  shoe  company,  while  illustrating  the  large  number  of  accidents  in 
some  industries  which  require  medical  expense  but  do  not  involve 
compensation,  also  is  suggestive  of  the  extent  to  which  the  amount  of 
compensation  would  be  increased  if  it  were  not  for  the  requirements 
of  the  law  which  compel  the  employer  to  furnish  efficient  medical 
attention.  Out  of  these  11  cases  a  large  portion  involved  blood 
poisoning,  and  if  they  had  not  been  given  proper  medical  attention 
at  least  some  of  the  number  would  have  suffered  serious  losses. 

The  reports  of  the  insurance  companies  to  the  Massachusetts  Indus- 
trial Accident  Board  show  that  out  of  the  41,256  accidents  for  .the 
year  ending  June  30,  1913,  26,609  required. medical  services  without 
compensation;  10,827  entailed  both  medical  services  and  compensa- 
tion, and  the  remaining  3,820  compensation  without  cost  for  medical 
services. 

However,  an  impression  prevails  that  costs  of  medical  services  are 
excessively  high  and  that  physicians,  knowing  that  bills  are  to  be 
paid  either  by  employers  or  insurance  companies,  charge  rates  higher 
than  they  would  if  their  services  were  to  be  paid  for  by  the  employees 
for  whose  benefit  they  are  rendered. 

In  Michigan  the  industrial  accident  board  instituted  an  inquiry 
involving  six  industries  and  19,295  employees  and  covering  3,757 
accidents,  and  from  this  it  would  appear  that  the  amount  of  money 
paid  for  medical  and  hospital  attention  was  $8,032.03,  and  the  amount 
paid  to  the  employees  and  their  families  for  compensation  was 
$15,588.55. 

The  subject  is  a  delicate  one,  and  the  commission  found  what  it 
considered  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  both  employers  and  insurance 
companies  to  avoid  antagonizing  the  members  of  the  medical  pro- 
fession, whose  expert  knowledge  is  frequently  a  controlling  factor  in 
determining  the  extent  of  personal  injuries.  The  medical  profession 
has  its  professional  standards  which  it  desires  to  maintain  and  with 
which  parties  concerned  are  loath  to  interfere.  There  is  generally  an 
objection  in  the  profession  to  working  upon  a  salary  or  under  a 
contract  system,  while  many  employers  feel  that  by  some  such  system 
the  cost  of  medical  attention  could  be  reduced.  There  is  a  strong 
tendency  to  respect  the  physician  and  his  standards. 

30003— S.  Doc.  419,  G3-2 3 


34  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

An  insurance  representative  in  one  of  the  Western  States  said  to 
the  commission: 

The  old-established  hospitals  have  not  made  any  increase  in  their  rates,  but  there 
have  been  a  number  of  industrial  hospitals,  so  called,  which  are  private  enterprises 
conducted  solely  for  the  purpose  of  taking  care  of  cases  of  this  kind,  which  have 
charged  fees  that  are  higher  than  the  fees  charged  by  the  older  established  hospitals, 
and  if  they"  have  not  done  that  they  have  charged  the  same  fees  and  given  service 
that  was  not  as  good.  We  have  made  it  a  rule  that  wherever  we  find  such  a  hospital 
we  will  do  all  that  we  can  to  prevent  a  man  from  going  to  it.  We  find  that,  with  the 
doctors,  there  are  certain  ones  who  overcharge.  We  make  it  a  rule  that  we  will  recom- 
mend to  each  risk  one  or  two  doctors  to  whom  they  may  send  their  men.  We  usually 
let  them  pick  the  doctors.  We  do  not  make  any  rule  requiring  the  men  to  go  to  a 
particular  doctor.  We  simply  recommend  doctors  who  agree  to  a  fair  schedule  of  fees. 
If  a  man  has  a  doctor  who  happens  to  be  a  family  doctor,  we  pay  the  bill  unless  it  is 
excessive.  If  it  is  excessive,  we  submit  it  to  the  industrial  accident  board  which 
has  the  power  to  rule  on  the  reasonableness  of  the  medical  charge.  The  board  has 
requested  that  we  do  so. 

Others  who  appeared  before  the  commission  suggested  that  it 
would  be  a  good  move  to  have  a  provision  in  the  law  requiring  that 
doctors'  bills  be  referred  to  the  State  industrial  board  for  considera- 
tion. 

The  Industrial  Accident  Board  of  Massachusetts,  realizing  the 
seriousness  of  the  situation,  held  a  conference  in  March,  1913,  with  the 
representatives  of  the  medical  societies  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,  which  resulted  in  the  appointment  of  an  advisory 
committee  and  the  adoption  by  that  committee  of  certain  recom- 
mendations referred  to  in  Appendix  No.  5.  Under  the  law  of  Mas- 
sachusetts the  employer  or  the  insurance  company  has  the  right  to 
select  a  physician,  otherwise  neither  is  required  to  pay  for  the  services, 
but  through  the  cooperation  of  the  industrial  accident  board  there 
has  been  a  working  agreement  with  the  insurance  companies  whereby 
the  employee  may  select  his  own  physician. 

At  the  conference  the  chairman  of  the  Massachusetts  board,  in 
presenting  the  matter  to  the  physicians  present,  in  the  course  of  his 
remarks,  said: 

If  I  understand  the  law  correctly  in  these  matters,  >  ou  have  no  right  whatever  to 
charge,  simply  because  there  is  an  insurance  company  in  the  case,  any  more  than  you 
would  charge  the  injured  man  if  he  came  to  your  office  for  your  personal  treatment  and 
assistance.  Remember  that;  because  the  continuance  of  this  working  agreement 
depends,  as  I  have  said,  entirely  upon  you.  This  is  all  a  question  of  cost.  The  insur- 
ance companies  at  first  objected  strenuously  to  this  agreement.  The\  said  they  could 
not  do  business  if  they  could  not  select  their  own  doctors,  but  the  industrial  accident 
board  asked  them  to  try  it  out,  and  so  far  it  is  working  satisfactorily.  *  *  *  Some 
bills  that  have  been  refused  payment  by  insurance  companies  have  been  fair,  but 
others  are  exactly  the  contrary.  When  a  young  doctor,  living  and  seeking  practice 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  working  poor,  asks  $5  a  visit,  sometimes  making  two  visits 
a  da> ,  the  answer  is  obvious.  When  doctors  visit  patients  with  a  crush  of  the  nerve 
of  the  thumb,  or  a  lacerated  wound,  and  claim  they  make  three  visits  a  day  because 
of  the  necessity  of  administering  opiates,  what  is  the  answer?  These,  however,  are 
only  the  common  everyday  troubles  with  the  medical  features  of  the  workmen's 
compensation  act.  Workmen's  compensation  laws  which  aim  to  compensate  injured 
employees  have  a  more  far-reaching  object  in  view,  and  that  is  the  prevention  of 
industrial  accidents.  The  board  is  anxious  that  the  medical  profession  should  be 
properly  compensated  and  not  be  deprived  of  any  professional  privileges,  and  espe- 
cially that  this  great  movement  may  be  put  on  a  firm  and  just  foundation,  and  for 
these  purposes  calls  this  meeting  and  seeks  your  cooperation.  The  physicians  of 
Massachusetts  will  receive  at  least  five  times  as  much  in  fees  from  the  industrial 
accident  board  through  the  insurance  companies  as  was  received  by  them  under  the 
employers'  liability  act.  The  insurance  association  and  the  Government,  if  far- 
sighted,  will  not  content  themselves  simply  with  the  cure  of  the  ills  that  are  found  to 
exist,  but  will  aim  at  preventing  them  and  getting  the  injured  person  back  to  work. 


KEPOET    OF    COMMISSION.  35 

If  the  insurance  company  has  not  a  voice,  or  only  a  minor  voice,  in  the  selection  of 
medical  treatment,  will  its  opportunity  and  endeavor  in  the  direction  of  prevention 
be  seriously  hampered? 

The  conference  was  attended  by  the  leading  physicians  of  the 
State,  at  which  one  of  the  physicians  said: 

It  seems  to  me  unfortunate  that  a  law  as  good  as  this  could  not  be  carried  on  with 
cooperation,  and  that  the  medical  profession  should  not  be  in  a  position  to  do  its  best 
most  generously.  In  essence,  we  come  here  to-day  to  offer  to  give  the  board  a  com- 
mittee to  cooperate  with  it.  The  Massachusetts  Medical  Society  and  the  Homeopathic 
Society  stand  ready  to  help.  *  *  *  I  think  the  feeling  of  the  profession,  right  or 
wrong,  is  that  regarding  the  question  of  choice  of  a  physician,  the  danger  is  on  the 
side  of  the  injured  man — that  he  may  get  inefficient  care.  The  injured  man  is  going 
to  make  a  great  many  mistakes,  and  not  always  get  the  best,  but  he  will  not  knowingly 
seek  cheap  or  unskilled  aid. 

Something  of  the  enormous  amount  of  hospital  work  performed 
by  physicians  and  surgeons,  a  great  deal  charity  work,  was  referred 
to  by  one  of  the  physicians,  who  stated  that: 

There  are  upward  of  80  hospitals  and  dispensaries  in  Boston  for  the  treatment  of  the 
sick  and  injured.  More  than  300,000  persons  receive  treatment  annually  in  these 
institutions.  It  has  been  estimated  that  at  the  prevailing  rates  for  such  services  in 
private  practice  the  labor  rendered  to  these  people  every  year  bj  the  medical  p/q- 
fession  would  amount  to  between  $8,000,000  and  $10,000,000.  The  medical  profession 
naturally  feels  that  this  charity  work  is  overdone;  that  a  certain  proportion  of  these 
charity  patients  are  well  able  to  pay  the  doctor  for  his  services;  and  that  in  view  of  the 
enormous  amount  of  work  necessary  for  the  proper  care  of  the  worth}  poor,  they  should 
not  be  required  to  serve  those  able  to  pay  for  treatment,  including  the  members  of 
insurance  companies  or  other  benefit  associations,  without  compensation. 

Another  physician  said: 

I  believe  that  the  insurance  companies  are  imposed  upon  in  many  instances,  but 
there  are  honest  men  in  the  medical  profession.  All  we  want  is  fair  remuneration; 
precisely  what  we  would  charge  that  individual  if  he  were  paying  the  bill  himself. 
We  are  perfectly  satisfied  with  that. 

Another  physician  presented  another  phase  of  the  situation: 

There  seems  to  be  a  great  stress  laid  upon  the  percentage  paid  the  doctors.  The 
board  seems  to  think  that  the  new  law  pays  the  doctors  a  great  amount.  Now,  if  we 
were  paying  compensation  to  well  people,  we  could  easily  understand  why  that  criti- 
cism would  be  just,  but  we  are  paying  compensation  to  a  man  more  in  need  of  medical 
service  than  he  is  of  bread.  If  a  man  has  a  septic  hand,  it  may  be  a  question  of  life 
or  death;  if  a  man  has  a  broken  leg,  it  is  a  question  perhaps  of  his  future  earnings. 
This  is  a  social  law  that  is  going  to  do  justice  to  the  worker.  It  is  going  to  place  the 
whole  cost  of  accidents  in  the  right  place.  Any  ruling  that  is  going  to  lessen  our 
earnings  is  not  going  to  fulfill  that  theory. 

The  argument  presented  at  the  conference  that  the  employees 
would  get  better  service  by  having  the  privilege  of  selecting  a  phy- 
sician was  not  always  approved  by  employers  whom  this  commission 
met  at  their  various  conferences.  It  was  quite  generallv  stated 
that  the  employee,  except  where  he  had  a  regular  family  physician, 
was  indifferent  as  to  the  physician  who  should  attend  Him,  quite 
frequently  was  unacquainted  with  the  physicians  in  the  community 
and  generallv  at  the  time  of  his  accident  was  in  no  condition  to  give 
it  consideration.  That,  on  the  other  hand,  the  employer,  if  given 
the  right  to  make  the  selection,  would  not  select  a  cheap  or  ineffi- 
cient physician,  but  would  be  interested  from  a  financial  point  of 
view  in  getting  good  medical  aid,  knowing  that  the  amount  of  com- 
pensation that  he  must  pay  the  injured  one  would  be  increased  if 
recovery  was  delayed  or  the  extent  of  the  injuries  enhanced  by  poor 


36  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

treatment.  However,  employers  did  recognize  the  considerations 
in  favor  of  permitting  the  employee  to  select  his  physician  whenever 
he  cared  to  exercise  a  choice,  and  it  is  generally  the  practice  even  in 
the  States  that  permit  the  employer  or  the  insurance  company  to 
select  the  physician  to  recognize  and  adopt  the  wishes  of  the  em- 
ployee whenever  he  gives  expression  to  them.  The  arguments 
offered  by  employers  against  being  compelled  to  pay  the  bills  of  the 
physician  selected  by  the  injured  person  are  that  the  physician, 
having  no  relation  with  the  person  who  must  pay  the  bill,  would  be 
more  likely  to  be  indifferent  as  to  whether  his  charges  were  fair;  and 
that  the  employee  who  selected  him,  not  being  called  upon  to  pay 
tne  bill  himself,  would  be  at  least  indifferent,  if  not  willing  that 
the  physician  should  either  overcharge  or  make  unnecessary  visits. 
In  an  effort  to  meet  the  situation,  a  group  of  manufacturers  of 
Detroit  have  organized  what  is  known  as  the  Manufacturers'  Mutual 
Hospital  Association,  the  purpose  and  plan  of  which  was  described 
to  tnis  commission  by  one  of  its  officers  as  follows: 

"With  the  passage  by  the  State  of  Michigan  of  an  employers'  liability  and  work- 
men's compensation  law,  which  became  effective  September  1,  1912,  there  imme- 
diately arose  the  necessity  for  more  adequate  hospital  facilities  for  the  care  of  injured 
workmen.  Not  that  industrial  accidents  would  increase  through  the  passage  of  this 
act,  but  because  the  responsibility  of  medical  and  surgical  care  for  the  injured  was 
placed  directly  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  employer  for  the  first  three  weeks  following 
the  accident. 

Through  the  passage  of  this  law,  insurance  rates  immediately  became  much  higher 
than  heretofore,  and  a  large  number  of  empolyers  decided  it  to  be  to  their  best  inter- 
ests to  carry  their  own  insurance.  . 

Realizing  the  shortsightedness  of  providing  medical  aid  for  an  injured  workman 
for  but  three  weeks,  and  then  turning  him  loose  to  shift  for  himself,  thereby  inviting 
additional  treatment ''  for  the  Man  of  sundry  and  various' sorts,  all  tending  toward 
the  lengthening  out  of  a  compensation  period,  thereby  entailing  additional  cost,  a 
number  of  Detroit  manufacturers  got  together,  and  the  Manufacturers'  Mutual  Hos- 
pital Association  was  formed. 

A  building  at  484  Jefferson  Avenue  was  secured,  being  fairly  centrally  located  to 
the  manufacturers  along  the  river  front,  who  were  the  originators  of  the  project,  and 
it  has  been  completely  equipped  as  a  hospital.  The  building  contains  27  rooms,  6 
baths,  is  steam  heated,  electrically  lighted,  has  large  grounds,  and  with  front  and 
rear  entrances.  The  wards  are  large,  light,  and  well  ventilated,  and  the  private 
rooms  are  exceptionally  line,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  building  was  at  one  time  the 
home  of  one  of  Detroit  s  most  representative  men. 

The  staff  consists  of  men  of  recognized  ability,  graduates  of  Yale,  Cornell,  and 
Johns  Hopkins  Universities,  to  which  has  been  added  considerable  hospital  experi- 
ence. This  immediately  insures  service  of  the  highest  quality. 

The  hospital  association  is  organized  on  a  mutual  plan,  the  members  being  assessed 
on  the  number  of  their  employees.  Assessments  are  based  on  actual  expenses,  and 
rebates  will  be  made  should  more  funds  be  collected  than  absolutely  necessary. 

The  method  of  handling  the  injured  is  as  follows: 

An  accident  occurs  in  the  establishment  of  a  member,  the  injured  party  is  imme- 
diately taken  to  the  hospital,  where  proper  aid  is  rendered.  If  the  injury  be  of  a 
serious  nature,  he  is  immediately  assigned  to  a  ward  or  room,  and  is  then  taken  care 
of  •until  he  has  entirely  recovered  and  is  able  to  report  back  to  work. 

Should  the  injury  be  of  a  minor  nature,  not  necessitating  a  stay  at  the  hospital, 
he  is  sent  to  his  home,  provided  that  conditions  at  his  home  in  the  way  of  sanitation, 
etc.,  are  favorable  to  his  condition.  If  not,  he  is  kept  at  the  hospital. 

These  cases  sent  to  their  homes  are  instructed  to  return  daily  to  the  hospital  for 
treatment,  but  if  they  are  unable  to  do  this  a  physician  will  call  as  often  as  necessary, 
and  treat  them  at  their  homes  until  they  are  either  able  to  report  at  the  hospitals  for 
further  treatment  or  to  return  to  work. 

In  addition  to  the  staff  of  physicians,  both  in  and  outside,  an  inspector  is  employed, 
whose  duty  it  is  to  keep  track  of  all  cases  that  are  being  treated  at  home  or  that  come 
to  the  hospital,  follow  them  up  in  change  of  address,  bring  them  to  the  hospital  if 
they  do  not  report  as  instructed,  make  reports  through  the  hospital  to  the  employer, 
and  in  every  way  safeguard  the  employer's  interests,  so  that  the  men  receive  the 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  37 

very  best  medical  and  surgical  care  and  are  returned  to  work  within  the  least  possi- 
ble time. 

A  complete  record  of  cases  is  kept  at  the  hospital,  such  as  history  sheets,  treatment 
and  call  records,  full  data  regarding  the  nature  of  the  accidents,  and  in  fact  every- 
thing pertaining  to  each  and  every  case.  Should  a  difference  arise  between  the 
employee  and  employer,  making  arbitration  necessary,  this  detail  information  is 
immediately  available. 

This  hospital  plan  is  only  a  part  of  the  general  campaign  of  education  by  which  we 
are  endeavoring  to  teach  the  workmen  that  their  interests  are  identical  with  those  of 
the  employer:  that  the  employer  is  making  every  effort  to  work  for  their  betterment 
in  various  ways,  such  as  proper  safeguarding  of  all  machinery  and  dangerous  place*, 
giving  them  light,  well  ventilated,  sanitary  places  to  work,  paying  the  highest  pos- 
sible wages,  and  taking  care  of  them  when  injured,  realizing  fully  that  such  a  course 
tends  toward  increased  loyalty  on  the  part  of  the  workman,  bringing  about  a  closer 
cooperation  and  gradually  decreasing  the  width  of  the  chasm  which  has  long  existed 
between  capital  and  labor. 

XIX.  WAITING  PERIOD. 

All  of  the  States  except  Washington  and  Oregon  prescribe  a  waiting 
period  beyond  which  disability  must  extend  before  compensation 
begins.  The  waiting  period  is  one  week  in  Texas,  West  Viriginia. 
Wisconsin,  and  Ohio,  and  two  weeks  in  Rhode  Island,  Nevada,  New 
Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Kansas,  Massachusetts,  Michi- 
gan, Minnesota,  Nebraska.  Arizona,  California,  Connecticut,  and 
Iowa.  In  Nevada,  where  the  period  was  originally  10  days,  it  was 
made  two  weeks  by  amending  the  statute,  and  in  the  new  California 
act  in  effect  January  1.  1914,  it  has  been  made  two  weeks,  where  it 
had  been  one  week  before. 

The  commission  found  differences  of  opinion  as  to  what  consti- 
tutes a  proper  waiting  period.  Employees  engaged  in  a  lino  of  work 
in  which  most  of  the  accidents  arc  slight  look  upon  the  wating  period 
as  unfair,  while  employees  engaged  in  hazardous  work,  where  acci- 
dents, if  any,  are  of  a  serious  nature,  take  but  little  interest  in  the 
length  of  the  waiting  period,  except  to  ask  that  in  case  the  disability 
extends  beyond  a  certain  term  the  right  to  compensation  shall  begin 
at  the  time  of  the  accident,  as  has  been  done  in  several  of  the  States. 
The  statute  of  Wisconsin  provides  that  where  the  disability  lasts  for 
more  than  four  weeks  the  compensation  relates  back  to  the  date  of 
the  accident.  In  Michigan  and  Nebraska  the  same  rule  prevails 
except  that  the  disability  must  last  for  eight  week*  before  the  right 
to  compensation  from  the  date  of  injury  exists.  The  Illinois  statute 
provides  chat  in  case  the  incapacity  is  permanent  the  right  fco  com- 
pensation begins  on  the  day  after  the  injury.  Many  employers 
stated  to  this  commission  that  the  waiting  period  should  be"  no 
longer  than  one  week,  but  these  were  usually  engaged  in  lines  of 
work  not  involving  serious  accidents;  in  fact,  in  these  employments, 
as  one  employer  put  it,  "If  we  did  not  pay  for  small  accidents,  there 
would  be  no  accidents  for  us  to  pay  for."  It  quite  frequently  hap- 
pens that  this  class  of  employers,  without  being  required  by  law  to 
do  so,  pay  employees  injured  from  the  time  of  the  accident  and 
ignore  the  waiting  period. 

As  a  rule,  workmen,  even  in  the  less  hazardous  industries,  stated 
that  they  would  rather  have  the  compensation  increased  for  the 
serious  accidents  than  to  have  the  waiting  period  reduced  below  two 
weeks;  and  that  a  man  could  better  stand  an  occasional  loss  from 
inability  to  work  during  a  short  period  if  he  were  assured  that  he 
would  receive  adequate  compensation  for  all  serious  injuries. 


38  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Some  idea  of  the  proportion  of  accidents  which  would  be  brought 
under  the  compensation  act  by  reducing  the  waiting  period  from  two 
weeks  to  one  is  shown  by  the  statistics  of  the  board  of  awards  in 
Ohio,  where  the  waiting  period  is  one  week.  Out  of  5,115  cases 
entitled  to  compensation,  1,128  were  disabled  more  than  one  week 
and  less  than  two.  From  the  statistics  of  the  Industrial  Insurance 
Commission  of  Washington  it  appears  that  out  of  12,380  accidents 
occurring  in  that  State  during  the  year  ending  October  1,  1913,  1,681 
involved  a  disability  of  less  than  one  week,  and  3,157  covered  a  dis- 
ability of  more  than  one  week  and  less  than  two  weeks,  so  that  more 
than  a  third  of  the  accidents  in  the  State,  for  which  employees  were 
paid,  involved  a  disability  of  less  than  two  weeks.  In  Massachusetts 
out  of  approximately  71,000  accidents  occurring  in  the  first  year  about 
67,718  involved  a  disability  of  less  than  two  weeks.  These  figures 
can  not  be  compared,  of  course,  with  the  figures  given  above  in  the 
other  States  for  the  reason  that  the  number  here  given  as  incurring 
a  disability  of  less  than  two  weeks  includes  those  workmen  who  were 
injured  but  not  prevented  from  working  as  a  result  of  their  injuries, 
while  in  the  States  given  above  there  was  an  actual  loss  of  time.  In 
California,  out  gf  6,150  accidents  coming  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
industrial  accident  board,  2,409  involved  a  disability  of  more  than  one 
week  and  less  than  two  weeks. 

Some  workmen  are  more  or  less  influenced  in  their  attitude  toward 
the  length  of  the  waiting  period  by  the  nature  of  the  injuries  common 
in  their  respective  occupations.  Others  have  formed  a  judgment  on 
experience  with  the  act  in  their  State.  In  Washington,  where  there 
is  no  waiting  period,  one  of  the  commissioners  stated  to  this  com- 
mission that  it  would  be  better  if  there  were  a  waiting  period  of  two 
weeks,  provided  medical  expenses  were  paid  for  by  the  employers 
and  increased  compensation  given  the  workmen  in  the  serious  cases. 
The  compensation  in  Washington  averages  about  40  per  cent  of  the 
wages.  Aside  from  the  question  of  fraud,  which  may  occur  with  no 
waiting  period,  is  the  expense  connected  with  handling  the  small 
accidents,  which  is  as  large  as  the  amount  of  money  involved,  if  not 
larger. 

A  trade  union  representative  in  Massachusetts  was  of  this  opinion: 

The  waiting  time  should  be  reduced  to  10  or  7  days.  Compensation  should  begin 
with  date  of  accident  when  the  injured  person  is  entitled  to  any  compensation;  that  is 
to  say,  when  the  injury  extends  beyond  the  waiting  period  compensation  should  be 
paid  from  the  date  of  the  accident. 

From  a  representative  of  a  Michigan  trade  union: 

Speaking  for  the  beer  bottlers,  I  will  say  that  they  are  not  very  much  benefited  by 
the  compensation  act.  For  instance,  one  of  our  workers  is  injured  by  the  explosion 
of  a  bottle.  Pie  is  unable  to  handle  the  bottles  by  reason  of  a  cut  on  his  hand  and 
he  is  not  so  severely  injured  that  he  requires  the  services  of  a  physician.  He  is  laid 
off  for  about  two  weeks  and  receives  no  compensation.  I  believe  some  steps  should 
be  taken  whereby  the  waiting  period  be  reduced  to  one  week  instead  of  two.  In 
some  cases  the  waiting  period  should  date  from  the  time  the  manreceived  the  injury.1 

A  representative  of  the  Employers'  Association  of  Ohio  said: 

The  employers  are  of  the  unanimous  opinion  that  there  should  be  a  waiting  period 
and  that  a  reasonable  time  should  be  fixed  to  determine  whether  or  not  an  injured 
employee  is  feigning  injury.  * 

1  Simple  safeguards,  at  small  expense  to  the  employer,  would  practically  eliminate  such  accidents. 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  39 

From  a  representative  of  a  Michigan  insurance  company: 

I  think  the  14-day  waiting  period  is  all  right,  especially  if  you  take  into  considera- 
tion the  fact  that  the  injured  person  will  receive  compensation  for  the  first  14  days, 
provided  the  period  of  disability  extends  beyond  eight  weeks. 

A  Massachusetts  employer  said: 

I  think  the  time  for  compensation  should  begin  after  the  first  week  and  not  the 
second,  as  this  is  a  hardship  on  many  employees. 

XX.  AMOUNT  OF  COMPENSATION. 

The  amount  of  compensation  varies  in  the  different  States  from  50 
to  66 §  per  cent  of  the  wages  of  the  injured  employee,  with  besides 
stated  allowances  for  amputations  and  certain  other  specified  in- 
juries. While  the  employers  in  States  paying  but  50  per  cent  of  the 
workman's  wages  regard  their  assessment  as  fair  and  are  fearful  of 
the  consequences  of  increasing  it,  this  commission  has  not  heard  much 
criticism  from  employers  in  States  in  which  a  higher  rate  of  compensa- 
tion is  paid.  In  fact,  in  the  latter  States  there  does  not  seem  to  be 
any  more  complaint  about  the  cost  than  in  States  paying  but  50  per 
cent.  A  representative  of  the  Employers'  Association  of  Cleveland, 
in  response  to  an  inquiry  as  to  how  the  employers  regarded  the  pay- 
ment of  66§  per  cent  of  wages  for  compensation,  said: 

In  the  first  place,  there  was  considerable  opposition  to  that  feature;  but  at  the 
present  time  I  think  our  members  are  satisfied  with  that  provision  of  the  law.  They 
have  become  educated  more  and  more  since  the  law  has  been  in  force.  The  more 
enlightened  our  members  have  become  on  that  subject  the  better  pleased  they  are 
with  it. 

The  principal  points  raised  by  employers  with  regard  to  cost  were 
to  have  the  amount  of  compensation  definite  and  certain,  to  have 
uniformity  in  the  different  States,  and  to  have  the  statutes  so  drawn 
as  to  avoid  uncertainties  and  litigation  with  its  consequent  waste. 
This  was  well  expressed  to  the  commission  by  a  representative  of  the 
Illinois  Steel  Co.  when  he  said: 

I  will  say  that  I  have  so  much  faith  in  compensation  acts  that  I  do  not  think  it 
makes  much  difference  how  long  the  payments  run,  or  what  the  amount  of  the  pay- 
ments may  be,  because  the  payments  are  distributed  over  the  whole  industrial  com- 
munity, and  I  might  say  over  the  whole  Nation,  in  the  long  run.  *  *  *  There 
should  be  a  uniformity  as  to  the  amounts  paid  in  the  different  States. 

The  commission  found  no  demand  on  the  part  of  employers  in  the 
States  ^  paying  a  rate  of  compensation  higher  than  50  per  cent  for 
reduction  or  other  change  of  the  amount  under  their  specific  law. 
The  States  paying  more  than  50  per  cent  for  compensation  are:  Cali- 
fornia, 65;  Nevada,  60;  Ohio,  66§;  Texas,  60;  Wisconsin,  65;  and 
New  York,  66§ ;  while  in  all  the  other  States,  except  Washington,  the 
compensation  is  on  a  50  per  cent  basis.  In  Washington,  where  the 
compensation  is  a  specific  monthly  sum,  the  statistics  of  its  industrial 
insurance  commission  show  that  the  payments  under  the  law  average 
about  40  per  cent  of  the  employees'  wages,  which  is  the  lowest  rate 
of  compensation. 

The  commission  found  a  growing  demand  in  the  different  States  in 
favor  of  so  extending  the  compensation  period  in  cases  of  total  perma- 
nent disability  as  to  cover  the  lifetime  of  the  unfortunate  victim. 
This  demand  has  been  recognized  in  the  statutes  of  several  of  the 
States.  That  employers  and  workmen  are  commencing  to  realize 


40  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

that  injuries  of  this  kind,  and  in  fact  all  serious  injuries  (rather  than 
the  minor  ones),  are  those  most  requiring  compensation  manifested 
itself  in  the  recent  change  in  the  policy  of  California.  In  its  new  com- 
pulsory act  that  State  changed  its  waiting  period  from  one  week, 
under  the  old  statute,  to  two  weeks,  and  the  compensation  in  cases  of 
total  permanent  disability  was  extended  through  life.  It  is  estimated 
by  the  California  officials  that  this  change  will  not  add  to  the  burden 
of  the  employer,  the  amount  saved  by  changing  the  waiting  period 
from  one  week  to  two  covering  the  increased  cost  of  the  life  provision 
in  total  permanent  disability  cases.  This  was  agreed  to  by  the  work- 
men in  that  State,  who  felt  that  they  could  better  stand  the  temporary 
injuries  of  two  weeks'  duration  than  those  incapacitating  them  for 
life. 

In  considering  the  amount  of  compensation  payable  under  a  statute, 
the  percentage  of  wages  is  but  one  element.  Most  statutes  prescribe 
a  maximum  weekly  amount,  which  varies  in  different  States.  Of 
course,  under  high  wages,  increasing  the  maximum  will  increase  the 
total  amount  of  compensation  more  than  it  will  under  low- wage  rates. 
In  Massachusetts  an  increase  in  the  maximum,  which  is  now  $10  a 
week,  would  have  affected  only  about  7  per  cent  of  the  employees 
injured  during  the  year  ending  June  30,  1913,  as  only  that  percentage 
of  those  injured  during  that  period  were  receiving  mow.  than  $20  per 
week.  In  some  States  payment  is  limited  to  a  certain  definite  number 
of  years  even  in  case  of  widowhood  or  for  permanent  total  disability, 
while  hi  others  compensation  is  paid  during  the  entire  period  of 
incapacitation. 

Efforts  are  being  made  in  some  of  the  States  to  work  out  a  schedule 
of  compensation  along  scientific  lines,  so  as  to  take  into  consideration 
the  age  of  the  employee,  the  effect  of  the  injury  upon  his  particular 
trade  or  occupation,  and  other  varying  conditions.  The  latest  Wis- 
consin statute  provides  that  in  the  case  of  permanent  injury  to  an 
employee  who  is  over  55  years  of  age,  compensation  shall  be  reduced 
by  5  per  cent;  in  case  he  is  over  60  years  of  age,  the  compensation 
shall  be  reduced  by  10  per  cent;  and  in  case  he  is  over  65  years  of 
age,  by  15  per  cent.  The  recent  New  York  statute  provides  that— 

If  it  be  established  that  the  injured  employee  was  a  minor  when  injured,  and  that 
under  normal  conditions  his  wages  would  be  expected  to  increase, 'the  fact  may  be 
considered  in  arriving  at  his  average  weekly  wages. 

Under  this  provision,  compensation  could  be  increased  accordingly. 

The  California  statute  arranges  a  schedule  depending  upon  the  per- 
centage of  disability  and  provides  that,  in  determining  such  percent- 
ages, account  shall" be  taken  of  the  nature  of  the  physical  injury  or 
disfigurement,  the  occupation  of  the  injured  employee,  and  his  age 
at  the  time  of  such  injury.  Under  such  a  statute,  a  disability  which 
interferes  with  the  injured  person  carrying  on  his  particular  trade  or 
occupation  will  be  considered  as  involving  a  greater  percentage  of 
disability  than  a  similar  injury  inflicted  upon  a  person  engaged  in 
an  occupation  either  not  affected  by  the  injury  or  affected  to  a  less 
extent. 

The  Massachusetts  Industrial  Accident  Board,  in  its  report  for  the 
year  1913,  states  that  it  considers  that  the  California  law  provides 
the  most  scientific  method  of  computing  partial  disability,  and  that 
it  hopes  to  present  a  similar  schedule  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Massachusetts  Legislature. 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  41 

There  has  not  been  sufficient  experience  under  these  schedules  to 
permit  a  report  as  to  their  operation.  However,  it  is  apparent  that 
the  subject  of  working  out  a  proper  schedule  is  receiving  considerable 
attention  in  the  various  States  and  involves  a  problem  for  the  future. 

XXI.  CONTRIBUTION  BY  EMPLOYEES. 

When  the  agitation  for  the  substitution  of  workmen's  compensa- 
tion acts  for  employers'  liability  laws  began  to  crystallize  in  the 
United  States,  a  strong  movement  developed  among  employers  to 
have  the  workingmeii  contribute  from  their  wages  a  part  of  the  fund 
from  which  compensation  should  be  paid.  In  fact,  the  first  Ohio 
statute  provided  that  compensation  to  workmen  should  be  based 
upon  60  per  cent  of  their  wages,  10  per  cent  of  which  should  be  con- 
tributed by  the  workmen.  It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that 
while  this  law  was  in  effect  the  employers  did  not  as  a  rule  require 
the  workmen  to  make  this  contribution,  even  though  having  a  legal 
right  to  deduct  the  10  per  cent  of  the  cost  from  the  pay  roll.  Em- 
ployers stated  to  the  commission  that  while  originally  they  favored 
the  plan  of  a  joint  contribution,  they  found  that  in  operation  it  Was 
impracticable  and  therefore  of  doubtful  value,  stating  as  a  rule  that 
no  such  deduction  was  made,  and  explaining  that  they  preferred  to 
bear  the  entire  cost  themselves.  Ohio  employers  said  that  they  not 
only  did  not  want  to  bother  with  the  bookkeeping  details  connected 
with  the  workmen's  contribution  but  they  did  not  want  to  take  any- 
thing out  of  the  employees'  pay.  The  present  Ohio  law  does  not 
require  the  workmen  to  make  any  contribution. 

When,  some  years  ago,  the  question  of  joint  contributions  by 
employers  and  workmen  was  under  consideration  by  the  National 
Civic  Federation  (which,  it  is  to  be  said  was  the  first  association  in 
the  country  that  undertook  a  study  of  workmen's  compensation 
legislation  and  declared  for  it),  it  was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  all 
the  groups  which  comprise  the  federation  that  industry  should  bear 
all  the  financial  burden  of  any  compensation  laws  to  be  enacted  in 
any  of  the  States  and  that  workmen  should  not  be  called  upon  to 
make  any  contribution  to  the  fund  from  which  compensation  was  to 
be  paid.  The  sentiment  expressed  was  that  inasmuch  as  an  injured 
workman  accepted  less  than  full  wages  as  compensation,  and  in  addi- 
tion bore  all  the  physical  pain  and  mental  suffering,  he  should  not 
be  called  upon  for  any  further  contribution.  This  recommendation 
of  the  National  Civic  Federation,  no  doubt,  had  much  to  do  in  obtain- 
ing an  acceptance  of  the  now  prevailing  principle  that  industry  alone 
ought  to  bear  the  financial  burden  and  pay  the  monetary  cost  of 
compensation  to  workmen  injured  in  the  course  of  their  employment. 

A  representative  of  the  Cleveland  Employers'  Association  stated 
to  this  commission: 

I  think  the  subject  of  having  the  workmen  contribute  to  the  fund,  and  sharing  the 
payment  of  a  portion  of  the  fund,  would  be  of  some  interest  to  you.  That  is  a  very 
unhappy  proposition.  I  do  not  know  of  an  instance  where  any  portion  of  the  premium 
was  collected  from  the  workmen .  That  feature  of  the  law  is  not  received  in  good  favor. 

When  asked  for  his  opinion  as  to  whether  the  attitude  of  the 
employers  would  have  been  different  with  regard  to  the  joint  con- 
tribution if  the  amount  to  be  deducted  from  the  workmen's  pay  had 
been  larger  than  the  10  per  cent  provided  by  the  Ohio  law,  he  said: 

I  do  not  think  so.     The  employers  did  not  care  to  bother  with  it. 


42  WORKMEN  's    COMPENSATION. 

He  further  stated  that  there  was  a  feeling  of  dislike  on  the  part  of 
employers  to  make  deduction  from  the  pay  of  the  men  in  their 
employ,  and  that — 

such  procedure  always  entails  a  great  deal  of  explanation  and  it  usually  results  in 
some  ill  feeling,  even  if  it  is  not  manifested  on  the  surface. 

XXII.  LITIGATION  UNDER  COMPENSATION  ACTS. 

Legal  controversies  between  employer  and  employee  arising  out  of 
the  latter's  right  to  compensation  or  damages  for  injuries  in  his  em- 
ployment have  practically  ceased  to  exist  among  those  employers  and 
employees  operating  under  workmen's  compensation  acts.  Even  in 
those  States  in  which  the  employee  is  given  some  remedy  in  addition 
to  his  right  to  compensation,  he  very  seldom  exercises  that  remedy 
and  it  has  become  practically  a  dead  letter  and,  as  appears  elsewhere, 
the  more  modern  statutes  are  eliminating  all  remedies  except  the 
right  to  the  statutory  compensation.  So  far  as  the  employee's  rights 
under  the  compensation  acts  are  concerned,  there  is  but  very  little 
controversy,  and  his  right  to  and  the  amount  of  compensation,  and 
the  length  of  his  disability,  are  generally  easily  ascertained  and  agreed 
to  by  the  parties,  and  such  agreement  confirmed  by  the  industrial 
accident  boards.  Disagreements  between  the  parties  are  decided 
by  arbitrations  with  the  right  in  most  cases  to  appeal  from  the  arbi- 
trations to  the  full  board  and  from  the  board  to  the  courts  upon  ques- 
tions of  law.  The  decisions  of  industrial  accident  boards  upon  ques- 
tions of  fact  are  final.  As  a  rule,  the  payment  of  benefits  under  the 
law  commence  with  the  expiration  of  the  first  week  of  compensation. 
In  case  of  a  difference  between  the  employer  and  the  employee  call- 
ing for  an  arbitration,  the  arbitrations  as  a  rule  delay  the  payments 
not  more  than  three  or  four  weeks  and  in  case  of  an  appeal  to  the  full 
board  not  more  than  four  weeks  additional.  Quite  frequently  the 
payments  commence  even  though  an  arbitration  is  called  for,  as  the 
question  involved  in  arbitration  may  not  affect  the  amount  of  each 
weekly  payment.  This  is  also  true  in  some  cases  where  the  appeal 
to  the  Supreme  Court  on  a  question  of  law  is  involved.  The  appeals 
to  the  Supreme  Court,  as  a  rule,  involve  the  construction  of  some 
provision  of  the  statute  and  are  made  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the 
law  upon  that  point.  Such  appeals  have  not  occurred  to  any  great 
extent;  the  courts  have  been  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
(questions  arising  under  compensation  acts  in  not  more  than  10  cases 
in  any  one  State.  The  statistics  from  the  State  of  Michigan  well 
illustrate  this  situation.  In  that  State,  during  the  period  of  the  first 
fifteen  months  of  the  operation  of  the  act,  approximately  15,000 
compensation  claims  were  paid,  involving  only  266  arbitrations,  61 
appeals  from  the  arbitration  committee  to  the  full  board,  and  10 
appeals  to  the  Supreme  Court.  In  Wisconsin,  during  the  period  be- 
tween July  1,  1912,  and  July  1,  1913.  compensation  was  paid  by  the 
employers,  without  order  of  the  commission,  in  3,048  cases,  hearings 
held  and  awards  made  in  50  cases,  and  5  cases  carried  to  the  court  for 
review.  This  condition  is  characteristic  of  the  condition  existing  in 
at  least  all  of  the  compensation  States  having  industrial  accident 
boards. 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  43 

XXIII.  ADMINISTRATION    BY    INDUSTRIAL    ACCIDENT    BOARDS. 

The  compensation  acts  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Ohio,  Cali- 
fornia, Illinois,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  Texas,  Nevada,  Oregon, 
West  Virginia,  New  York,  and  Washington  provide  for  administra- 
tion through  an  industrial  accident  board,  though  known  in  some  of 
these  States  by  different  names.  The  Illinois  act  did  not  originally 
provide  for  it,  but  by  the  new  act  such  a  board  is  created.  These 
ooards  are  appointed  by  the  governor  of  the  State.  Settlement 
agreements  made  between  an  employer  and  employee  are  filed  with 
the  board  and  must  be  approved  by  it  to  be  effective.  All  questions 
are  settled  by  the  board  and  are  conclusive,  except  questions  of  law, 
which  are  considered  by  the  courts  only  on  appeal  from  the  industrial 
accident  board. 

Except  in  Texas  and  Illinois,  whose  boards  have  been  organized 
very  recently,  and  in  West  Virginia,  Nevada,  and  New  York  (not 
yet  appointed)  this  commission  has  held  consultations  with  mem- 
bers of  boards  in  all  the  States  in  which  any  exists.  These  officials, 
without  exception,  so  far  as  this  commission  has  been  able  to  ascer- 
tain, are  taking  an  active  interest  in  their  work  and  giving  general 
satisfaction  to  both  employers  and  employees. 

When  parties  to  a  compensation  case  are  unable  to  agree  an  acci- 
dent commission  stands  ready  to  hold  informal  hearings  and  aid  in 
adjusting  the  differences.  In  case  this  method  fails,  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  board,  together  with  two  other  persons  selected  by  the 
disputants,  act  as  arbitrators.  Under  the  law,  a  decision  of  these 
arbitrators  may  be  appealed  to  the  entire  board. 

The  members  of  the  boards  become  specialists.  They  get  to  under- 
stand problems  that  arise  under  the  administration  of  the  law;  they 
know  the  type  of  people  who  come  before  them;  they  work  out  a 
uniform  administration  of  the  law;  they  bring  about  prompt  adjust- 
ments; when  accidents  are  reported  and  compensation  agreements 
not  entered  into,  they  investigate;  and  they  quite  frequently  return 
agreements  for  correction  which  contain  amounts  not  proper  for  the 
particular  injury  and  the  consequent  loss  of  time.  In  most  of  these 
States  employers  are  required  either  by  statutory  provisions  or  by 
rule  adopted  by  the  board  to  file  with  it  receipts  snowing  that  weekly 
payments  have  been  actually  paid  as  directed  by  the  board.  Every- 
where, both  employer  and  employee  testify  to  the  satisfaction  given 
by  the  accident  boards.  They  agree  that  the  members  of  these  boards 
are  not  only  in  full  sympathy  with  the  law  but  that  in  their  decisions 
they  give  trie  employee  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  and  all  other  benefits 
he  is  entitled  to  under  the  law.  A  few  employers  have  resented  State 
interference  in  what  they  claim  to  be  their  own  affairs.  Employers 
in  general,  however,  state  that  they  wish  to  uphold  the  law  and  have 
it  carried  out;  and  that  they  would  rather  have  a  liberal  construction 
of  a  statute  than  be  subjected  to  bickerings,  antagonisms,  and  uncer- 
tainties. As  already  stated,  what  they  are  most  interested  in  is  to 
have  the  law  uniformly  executed  and  all  uncertainties  removed,  so 
that  they  may  know  definitely  the  methods  of  the  administering 
body  and  the  burden  that  is  likely  to  be  placed  upon  their  industries. 

The  fact  that  these  boards  have  the  power  to  investigate,  and  to 
refuse  to  approve  settlement  agreements  in  cases  of  noncompliance 


44  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

with  the  law,  makes  employers,  and  insurers  careful  .in  their  adjust- 
ments and  in  their  other  proceedings  under  it.  The  employers  and 
insurers  of  a  State  must  in  the  course  of  the  administration  of  com- 
pensation meet  the  same  board  in  connection  with  every  accident 
that  occurs.  Every  employer  knows  that  if  he  deceives  or  trifles 
with  the  board,  his  future  acts  will  be  subjected  to  a  keener  scrutiny. 
Every  insurance  company  knows  that  if  it  does  not  treat  employees 
fairly,  or  attempts  to  take  advantage  of  them,  the  industrial  accident 
board  will  know  it  and  will  be  suspicious  of  its  future  acts. 

The  necessity  that  a  board  or  official  shall  be  intrusted  with  the 
powers  that  are  invested  in  the  industrial  accident  boards,  and  that 
failure  to  do  so  opens  the  door  to  fraud  and  imposition  upon  em- 
ployees, is  apparent  when  one  considers  that  a  great  majority  of  the 
claims  arising  under  the  compensation  law  are  for  periods  covering 
but  a  few  weeks,  involving  a  comparatively  small  amount  of  money, 
and  that  in  many  cases  an  injured  employee,  either  from  unfamili- 
arity  with  the  law  or  from  the  feeling  that  the  amount  involved  would 
not  justify  him  in  going  into  the  courts  with  his  claim  or  employing 
an  attorney,  would  accept  a  less  amount  than  he  is  entitled  to  under 
the  law.  With  this  opportunity  open  to  them,  employers,  either 
themselves  or  through  adjusters,  might  make  settlements  to  their 
own  advantage.  No  matter  ho\y  well  intentioned  an  employer  or  an 
insurance  company  might  be,  if  its  adjuster  could  make  a  percentage 
of  saving  in  settling  accident  claims,  a  competitive  advantage  would 
be  obtained  and  this  practice  would  soon  become  general. 

This  state  of  affairs  is  illustrated  in  New  Jersey,  and  the  oppor- 
tunity exists  in  other  States  acting  without  industrial  commissions. 
In  New  Jersey  there  is  no  State  record  showing  whether  or  not 
employees  are  being  fairly  treated  under  the  act.  By  the  law,  settle- 
ments must  be  reported  to  the  commissioner  of  labor,  who  places 
them  on  file,  but  he  has  no  power  to  investigate  or  to  supervise  the 
settlements,  and  from  statements  made  to  this  commission  it  would 
seem  that  only  a  part  of  the  settlements  are  reported  to  him. 

An  examination  of  the  records  of  the  commissioner  of  labor  of 
New  Jersey  showed  that  many  of  the  reported  settlements  are 
manifestly  irregular.  The  following  are  examples,  it  being  an  easy 
matter  to  select  others:  Finger  amputated;  injured  party  entitled  to 
minimum  amount  of  $425,  plus  unknown  amount  due  for  lost  time; 
received  only  $250.  Half  of  first  ringer  amputated;  entitled  to 
.$166;  received  $151.  Death;  beneficiaries  entitled  to  $1,500; 
received  $1,100.  Death;  entitled  to  $1,500;  received  $380.  Death; 
entitled  to  $1,500;  received  $1,149.  In  each  of  the  last  three— the 
death  cases — a  lump  sum  was  paid  without  procurement  of  an  order 
of  the  court,  as  required  by  the  statute.  In  another  case,  in  which 
the  beneficiaries  were  entitled  to  at  least  $1,500,  they  received 
nothing.  On  the  face  of  these  reports  they  appeared  to  be  for  a  less 
amount  than  the  law  prescribes.  Considering  the  opportunity  for 
irregular  adjustments  that  exists  under  the  New  Jersey  law,  it  is 
fair  to  suppose  that  at  least  in  some  of  these  cases  an  injustice  was 
committed.  There  is  no  way  of  proving  whether  or  not  the  em- 
ployees of  New  Jersey  are  receiving  the  compensation  to  which  they 
are  entitled.  That  is  a  serious  defect  in  the  system  of  that  State. 
From  information  received  by  this  commission,  it  seems  probable 
that  not  over  60  per  cent  of  the  amounts  payable  under  the  New 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  45 

Jersey  statute  are  being  paid.  The  opportunity  for  fraud  exists, 
fraud  that  it  is  difficult  to  detect.  This  condition  could  not  exist  in 
a  State  having  an  industrial  accident  board  with  power  to  approve 
all  settlements  and  follow  up  the  payments  and  see  that  they  are 
made  in  full. 

The  defect  in  the  New  Jersey  law,  with  some  of  its  consequences, 
was  well  described  by  Commissioner  of  Labor  Bryant  of  that  State 
in  an  address  made  at  the  1913  convention  of  the  New  Jersey  Fed- 
eration of  Labor,  in  which  he  said : 

New  Jersey  has  one  of  the  most  practical  and  workable  compensation  laws  or  em- 
ployers' liability  laws  that  were  ever  enacted  in  this  country.  It  was  practically 
the  forerunner  of  this  class  of  legislation,  a  type  which  has  been  largely  followed  by 
other  States,  but  there  is  one  defect  which  I  consider  serious,  and  which  should  be 
remedied.  That  law,  after  having  been  drafted,  is  practically  turned  adrift  to  work 
out  its  own  salvation.  I  belie ve  there  should  be  some  supervisory  power  over  its 
operation.  Employers  and  employees  enter  into  compensation  settlements  abso- 
lutely at  variance  with  the  compensation  schedule  indicated  by  the  law.  The  very 
object  of  the  passage  of  the  law  was  to  see  that  the  injured  operative  received  fair  and 
just  compensation.  This  compensation  was  to  be  paid  to  him  absolutely  in  accord 
with  a  specific  schedule  which  had  been  prearranged.  He  was  to  get  the  entire 
amount.  It  was  not  to  be  frittered  away  in  court  costs  or  lawyers'  fees.  That  was 
the  fundamental  object  of  the  law.  Fortunately  we  had  a  law  enacted  which  requires 
the  reporting  of  all  settlements  from  casualty  companies  to  the  department  of  labor 
and  also  all  settlements  between  a  manufacturer  and  an  employee  providing  thero 
had  been  no  insurance  company  in  the  matter.  I  want  to  tell  you  what  actuall> 
happened  yesterday.  A  girl  came  into  our  office  seeking  advice.  She  was  injured 
on  April  25,  losing  one  of  the  phalanges  of  the  first  finger,  and  was  unable  to  resume 
work  until  July  10,  a  period  of  11  weeks.  She  was  entitled  to  $21.50  for  medical 
aid  for  the  first  2  weeks,  and  $31.50  for  temporary  disability,  plus  $61.25  for  per- 
manent injury.  The  permanent  injury  compensation  was  not  given  to  that  girl, 
compensation'for  the  amount  which  she  would  lose  by  inability  to  work,  because  the 
^irl  rlfcd  to  go  through  the  balance  of  her  life  with  a  portion  of  her  finger  missing,  and 
it  was  intended  by  that  law  that  she  should  receive  compensation  on  that  basis. 

This  is  the  settlement  made  with  that  girl:  Her  doctor's  bill  of  $13.50  was  paid  by 
the  employer,  but  instead  of  $92.75  compensation  due  she  was  offered  an  insurance 
check  for  $28,  providing  she  returned  $14  of  that  $28  to  her  employer.  Fortunately 
for  that  girl  she  came  to  our  office  and  explained  the  matter.  \Ve  made  out  the 
schedule  I  have  read  to  you  and  gave  it  to  her,  showed  her  the  section  of  the  law,  told 
her  what  she  was  entitled  to,  ana  told  her  to  go  to  Judge  Knichtel  and  get  it.  The 
girl  fortunately  had  intelligence  enough  to  come  to  the  department  of  labor,  but  many 
such  cases  are  being  settled  throughout  the  State  without  any  supervision.  So,  it 
really  brings  itself  back  in  a  measure  to  the  days  of  the  old  claim  agents,  when  a 
man  went  to  an  injured  person  with  a  handbag  full  of  $1  bills  and  tried  to  get  the 
family  to  sign  off  for  the  undertaker's  bill  in  one  room  while  the  remains  were  in 
another.  That  was  the  reason  for  passing  this  law.  I  maintain  there  should  be  some 
supervisory  power  and  that  before  the-  employer  is  discharged  of  all  responsibility 
and  liability,  the  compensation  should  be  approved  by  somebody.  You  might  think 
that  was  an  isolated  case;  of  course  it  is  a  horrible  example.  We  hate  to  think  that 
any  civilized  person  would  be  so  small  as  to  take  advantage  of  a  poor  girl  under  such 
circumstances,  but  actual  statistics  prove  that  of  all  the  reports  we  receive,  19  per 
cent  of  those  settlements  were  made  contrary  to  the  schedule.  Now,  the  very  unfor- 
tunate part  of  our  compensation  law  is  the  fact  that  our  records  show  that  approxi- 
mately 19  per  cent  of  the  cases  reported  to  us  were  paid  in  a  faulty  or  irregular  manner. 
Seven  per  cent  did  not  receive  any  compensation.  Fourteen*  per  cent  did  not  re- 
ceive medical  aid. 

These  figures  are  obtained  from  the  reports  filed  by  employers  and  they  are  ba.-^'l 
on  the  requirements  set  forth  in  the  compensation  schedule,  which,  of  course,  repre- 
sents the  serious  aspect,  that  the  real  object  of  the  law  in  26  per  cent  of  these  cases  wa.s 
evaded.  Some  amounts  were  small  and  some  were  large.  In  one  case  $425  were  due 
and  they  paid  $250  and  left  the  injured  party  short  $175.  The  man  signed  for  a  dis- 
charge of  all  obligations.  In  another  case  $168  were  due  and  $151  were  paid,  leaving 
a  shortage  of  only  $15,  but  that  is  a  whole  lot  to  the  man  injured  and  not  able  to  work 
and  get  full  compensation  and  having  perhaps  a  family  dependent  upon  him.  In 
another  case  a  party  entitled  to  $282  received  $257,  leaving  a  shortage  of  S25.  Let  us 
ake  a  fatal  case.  In  one  case  where  the  dependents  upon  a  person  killed  were  enti- 


46  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

tied  to  $1,500  the  compensation  paid  was  only  $380,  leaving  a  shortage  of  $1,120.  In 
another  case  where  $1,500  were  due  to  dependents  of  a  workman  killed  the  compensa- 
tion paid  was  $650,  leaving  a  shortage  of  $850.  It  is  possible  in  some  such  cases,  if  we 
had  heard  both  sides,  that  after  the  thing  was  analyzed  and  we  were  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  all  conditions  our  computation  might  not  have  been  absolutely  cor- 
rect, but  in  another  case  it  would  seem  from  the  statements  signed  by  the  employers 
themselves  that  the  figures  we  have  arrived  at  are  apparently  correct,  and  in  one  case, 
according  to  all  the  records  before  us,  the  dependents  were  entitled  to  $2,700  and^ 
according  to  the  settlement,  nobody  got  anything.  The  report  was  filed  in  the  office 
at  Trenton.  These  settlements  are  made  out  of  court,  and  that  is  exactly  what  the 
law  contemplates.  It  was  not  contemplated  that  every  time  a  workman  and  his 
employer  wanted  to  make  such  a  settlement  they  must  hire  lawyers  and  go  into  court, 
but  when  they  get  together  and  make  a  settlement  and  the  settlement  is  filed  with 
the  Department  of  Labor,  I  maintain  that  somebody  should  have  authority  to  go  over 
those  figures  and  see  that  the  poor  man  is  getting  his  just  due. 

In  Minnesota,  while  that  State  does  not  have  an  industrial  accident 
board  and  the  law  is  administered  through  the  department  of  labor 
and  industries,  the  commissioner  of  labor  believes  that  the  labor 
department  "is  watching  the  operation  of  the  law  as  closely  as  any 
industrial  commission  could  do,  and  that  the  courts  are  construing 
the  law  in  a  very  liberal  manner  and  are  making  awards  in  most  cases 
in  the  interest  of  the  employee."  The  provisions  of  the  Minnesota 
law,  designed  to  protect  the  employee  against  an  improper  settle- 
ment, require  that  settlements  shall  be  substantially  according  to  the 
provisions  of  the  act  and  approved  by  the  judge  of  the  district  court ; 
that  copies  of  settlements  shall  be  filed  with  the  commissioner  of 
labor,  and  that  he  shall  have  power  to  assist  employees  in  adjusting 
differences,  shall  observe  in  detail  the  operation  of  the  act  throughout 
the  State  and  make  report  thereof  to  each  session  of  the  legislature, 
and  shall  make  suggestions  and  recommendations  as  to  changes  to 
the  legislature.  This  is'  an  improvement  on  the  New  Jersey  law  in 
that  it  requires  settlement  agreements  to  be  approved  by  the  judge 
of  the  district  court,  whereas  in  New  Jersey  no  official  is  charged  with 
this  duty. 

Of  the  other  States  not  having  industrial  accident  boards,  Rhode 
Island  is  the  only  one  requiring  that  its  settlement  agreements  be 
approved  by  public  officials.  In  that  State  they  must  be  approved 
by  a  justice  of  the  superior  court.  There  is  no  provision  of  law  requir- 
ing the  approval  of  settlement  agreements  in  Kansas,  Nebraska,  New 
Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  and  Arizona. 

The  States  haying  compensation  acts  without  industrial  accident 
boards  to  administer  the  law  are  Arizona,  Maryland,  Nebraska,  New 
Jersey,  New  Hampshire,  Kansas,  Minnesota,  and  Rhode  Island. 

In  Ohio,  Washington,  and  California  the  board  of  awards  admin- 
isters the  insurance  fund  and  also  makes  the  award;  that  is,  it  fixes 
the  assessment  and  collects  the  fund  from  the  employers  and  also 
makes  the  legal  award  and  payment  out  of  the  fund  to  the  bene- 
ficiaries. 

The  wisdom  of  this  system — that  is,  the  system  of  empowering  the 
industrial  accident  board  to  collect  the  premiums  from  employers  and 
to  administer  the  funds — has  been  called  into  question.  In  response 
to  an  inquiry  in  regard  to  this  view  of  the  Washington  law  one  of  the 
members  of  the  Washington  commission  stated : 

I  have  carefully  watched  the  progress  of  the  work  for  the  last  six  months  at  least, 
and  it  seems  to  me  there  is  a  tendency  to  settle  with  the  men  before  they  are  com- 
pletely well,  in  the  hope  of  getting  them  off  the  pay  roll. 

That  is;  the  compensation  pay  roll. 


REPORT   OF   COMMISSION.  47 

In  response  to  a  question  as  to  the  advisability  of  having  two  com- 
missions, one  to  administer  the  State  insurance  fund  and  the  other 
to  pass  upon  the  awards,  the  answer  was  made  very  deliberately  and 
after  reflection : 

I  would  answer  this  question  thus:  In  my  opinion  the  further  the  board  dealing 
with  the  industrial  unfortunates  is  removed  from  the  board  that  has  charge  of  the  fund 
necessary  to  meet  these  obligations  the  better. 

In  Ohio,  which  also  has  a  State  fund  administered  by  the  indus- 
trial accident  board,  this  commission  heard  no  objections  raised 
similar  to  those  raised  in  Washington.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Wash- 
ington is  the  only  State  in  which  we  heard  this  question  discussed. 
This  system  only  went  into  operation  in  California  on  the  1st  of 
January,  1914. 

Texas  has  an  industrial  accident  board,  although  the  law  does  not 
require  the  approval  by  that  board  of  settlement  agreements  before 
they  become  effective. 

While  the  Wisconsin  commission  is  not  required  to  pass  upon  set- 
tlement agreements,  it  has  power  to  set  aside,  modify,  or  confirm 
such  an  agreement  upon  application  made  within  one  year  from  the 
time  of  the  compromise.  The  commission,  by  its  rules,  requires  the 
employer  to  file  a  report  every  four  weeks  during  the  continuance  of 
disability,  showing  what  payments  have  been  made  and  the  final 
disposition  of  the  cases,  and  when  the  disability  ceases  to  file  a  final 
receipt  with  the  commission. 

Under  the  present  Illinois  act,  settlement  agreements  may  be  made 
without  the  approval  of  the  State  board,  although  the  statute  con- 
tains a  provision  forbidding  any  employee,  personal  representative, 
or  beneficiary  to  waive  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  act  in  regard  to 
the  amount  of  compensation  which  may  be  payable,  except  after 
approval  by  the  industrial  board. 

The  New  York  statute,  to  become  effective  July  1,  1914,  involves 
still  a  different  method  of  protecting  employees  against  the  making  of 
improper  settlements.  It  goes  further  than  providing  a  board  or 
official  with  power  to  pass  upon  settlement  agreements,  in  effect  pre- 
venting the  making  of  agreements  of  this  kind  by  giving  to  the 
commission,  known  as  the  workmen's  compensation  commission, 
power  to  hear  the  evidence,  examine  the  proofs,  and  make  the  awards 
in  the  first  instance  in  all  cases. 

It  also  requires  that  all  insurance  carriers  and  employers  carrying 
their  own  risk  shall  deposit  with  the  workmen's  compensation  com- 
mission financial  awards  due,  and  that  the  same  shall  be  disbursed 
by  them  to  the  beneficiary. 

While  the  Massachusetts  and  Michigan  industrial  accident  boards 
permit  the  employer  or  insurance  company  to  pay  direct  to  the 
employee,  it  protects  him  against  fraud  by  requiring,  first,  that  the 
settlement  agreements  be  approved  by  the  board  and,  secondly,  that 
the  employer  or  insurance  company  file  weekly  receipts  showing  that 
the  payments  have  been  made,  and  then,  like  Wisconsin,  require  the 
filing  of  a  final  receipt  showing  the  final  payment.  In  fact,  all  indus- 
trial boards  or  State  commissions  have  power  under  the  statute  to 
make  rules  and  regulations  and  can  make  rules  similar  to  that  of 
Massachusetts,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin,  and,  in  most  States  having 
such  commissions,  rules  of  this  general  character  have  been  made. 


48  WORKMEN   S    COMPENSATION. 

The  New  York  statute  goes  a  step  further,  and  instead  of  relying 
upon  the  protection  afforded  by  the  filing  of  receipts  showing  that 
the  compensation  awarded  has  been  actually  paid,  requires  the 
employer  to  make  the  payments  to  the  New  York  commission,  which 
then  pays  the  injured  employee  or  his  family. 

The  mere  requirement  that  settlement  agreements  must  be  ap- 
proved by  a  public  official  does  not  entirely  protect  the  employee 
unless  some  provision  is  made  for  following  up  the  settlement  agree- 
ments and  knowing  whether  or  not  the  provisions  of  the  agreement 
are  carried  into  effect  and  the  beneficiaries  actually  paid.  The  Mich- 
igan and  Massachusetts  commissions  are  required  under  the  law  to 
exercise  more  supervision  in  this  respect  than  any  of  the  other  com- 
missions. The  statute  of  Massachusetts  requires  that  within  60  days 
after  the  termination  of  the  disability  of  the  injured  employee  tne 
insurer  shall  file  with  the  board  a  statement  showing  the  total  pay- 
ments made  or  to  be  made  for  compensation  and  for  medical  services 
for  such  injured  employee. 

The  Michigan  plan  of  having  receipts  filed  with  the  board  for  each 
weekly  payment,  followed  by  a  receipt  in  full  when  the  final  payment 
is  maae,  was  commented  upon  by  the  chairman  of  the  industrial  acci- 
dent board  at  a  conference  with  this  commission,  when,  in  picking  up 
a  file  of  papers,  he  said : 

Here  is  a  case  that  has  been  running  for  some  little  time  that  has  an  agreement  in 
regard  to  compensation  on  the  face  of  it,  and  here  are  receipts  for  compensation  paid 
on  the  account.  This  continues  right  along  until  that  checks  out  in  full  and  the 
settlement  is  received. 

Forms  illustrating  the  methods  pursued  by  boards  or  commissions 
are  found  in  Appendix  No.  4. 

In  conclusion,  the  States  having  various  methods  of  supervising 
settlement  agreements  may  be  divided  into  groups  as  follows: 

(1)  Those  States  which,  while  permitting  settlement  agreements, 
provide  no  method  whatever  of  supervising  the  agreements; 

(2)  Those  States  requiring  the  filing  of  such  agreements  with  a 
public  official  without  giving  that  official  power  to    approve  or  dis- 
approve them; 

\3)  Those  States  requiring  the  approval  of  such  agreements  by 
some  bfficial  other  than  an  industrial  accident  board; 

(4)  Those  States  which,  though  having  industrial  accident  boards, 
do  not  require  the  board  or  any  other  official  to  approve  or  disapprove 
the  settlement  agreements; 

(5)  Those  States  having  an  industrial  accident  board  and  requiring 
the  approval  of  settlement  agreements  by  such  board  and  the  filing 
of  receipts  and  vouchers  with  the  board,  showing  the  payments  had 
been  made  pursuant  to  the  settlement  agreements;  and 

(6)  Those  States  not  permitting  settlement  agreements,  but  requir- 
ing that  all  cases  be  submitted  to  the  State  board  and  that  the  amount 
of  compensation  as  fixed  by  the  board  be  collected  from  the  employer 
or  insurance  company  by  the  board  and  in  turn  paid  out  by  the  board 
to  the  injured  workman  or  beneficiaries. 

XXIV.  METHODS  OF  INSURING. 

Under  a  compensation  act  weekly  payments  replace  the  lump  sum 
paid  under  the  liability  law.  But  an  employer  solvent  at  the  time  of 
an  accident,  and  hence  competent  to  pay  the  full  amount  of  a  judg- 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  49 

ment  for  a  lump  sum,  may  become  insolvent  afterwards  and  be  unable 
to  meet  the  series  of  weekly  payments.  An  employee  who  is  incapaci- 
tated for  only  a  few  weeks  may  be  able  to  stand  the  loss  in  case  the 
employer  becomes  insolvent  during  that  time,  a  circumstance  obvi- 
ously less  likely  to  arise  than  in  the  case  of  payments  running  for  a 
long  period.  In  the  latter  class  of  cases  the  injury  itself  being  serious, 
the  need  for  certainty  of  payment  of  compensation  is  the  greater. 

That  it  is  usually  to  the  benefit  of  the  injured  employee  and  his 
family  that  payments  be  made  weekly  instead  of  in  a  lump  sum  is 
generally  accepted.  Employees  while  recognizing  this  fact  demand 
that  they  be  secured  in  some  way  against  the  possible  insolvency  of 
the  employer  during  the  weekly  payment  period.  The  justice  of  this 
position  was  generally  acknowledged  by  the  employers  when  the 
commission  met  at  its  conferences.  Many  employers  are  but  tempo- 
rarily in  a  particular  line  of  business  or  a  special  undertaking. 

In  New  Hampshire  an  employer  who  accepts  the  compensation  act 
is  required  to  procure  a  certificate  from  the  commissioner  of  labor  as 
to  his  financial  ability  to  meet  the  payments  or  to  give  a  bond  to  the 
effect  that  he  will  do  so.  Of  the  21  employers  in  New  Hampshire  who 
have  accepted  the  compensation  act  one  has  given  such  a  bond,  and 
the  solvency  of  the  others  has  been  approved  by  the  commissioner. 

Ohio  met  this  difficulty  by  creating  a  State  insurance  fund,  to  be 
maintained  by  assessments  on  employers  and  administered  by  the 
State  board  of  awards,  the  latter  passing  upon  all  claims  for  com- 
pensation. 

Washington,  adopting  in  principle  the  same  method,  also  created 
a  State  fund,  but  made  contribution  to  it  compulsory  by  those  em- 
ployers covered  by  the  compensation  act. 

Oregon,  Nevada,  and  West  Virginia  also  created  State  insurance 
funds,  to  which  employers  accepting  the  act  must  contribute.  This 
constitutes  the  only  method  01  insurance  of  those  who  accept  the 
elective  compensation  acts  of  those  States. 

In  Massachusetts,  an  employer  accepting  the  act  is  required  to 
insure  his  employees.  The  act  provides  for  the  formation  of  a  mutual 
company.  The  directors  of  the  company  were  appointed  by  the 
governor  and  afterwards  elected  by  the  policyholders.  The  act  re- 
quires that  employers  accepting  it  must  insure  their  employees  either 
in  this  mutual  company  or  in  any  other  mutual  company  or  a  liability 
company  authorized  under  the  laws  of  the  State. 

Texas,  whose  act  went  into  operation  October  1,  1913,  followed 
the  Massachusetts  plan. 

Wisconsin  provides  that  employers  coming  under  its  act,  unless 
given  permission  by  the  State  accident  board  to  carry  their  own  risk, 
must  take  out  insurance  with  either  a  mutual  or  a  stock  company. 

The  Michigan  act,  which  was  passed  after  the  Massachusetts 'and 
Wisconsin  laws,  adopted  all  four  methods  of  insurance;  that  is,  it 
permitted  employers  whose  solvency  was  approved  by  the  State 
board  of  awards  to  carry  their  own  risk  but  required  others  to  take 
insurance  in  either  a  mutual  insurance  company  or  a  stock  company 
or  in  the  State  insurance  fund,  the  latter  being  administered  by  the 
State  insurance  commissioner  and  maintained  by  assessment  on  the 
employers  electing  to  contribute  to  the  State  fund. 

The  California  act,  in  effect  January  1,  1914,  is  similar  to  the 
Michigan  law  in  that  it  creates  a  State  insurance  fund,  but  does  not 
30003— S.  Doc.  410,  63-2 4 


50  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

make  insurance  compulsory.  It  provides  merely  that  the  employer 
may  insure  in  a  mutual  company,  a  stock  company,  or  the  State  in- 
surance fund. 

Under  the  Connecticut  law  every  employer  accepting  the  act  must 
furnish  to  the  insurance  commissioner  satisfactory  proof  of  his 
financial  ability  to  pay  compensation  directly  to  injured  employees  or 
their  beneficiaries,  and  file  with  the  insurance  commissioner  accept- 
able security  guaranteeing  the  payment  of  compensation,  or  else 
insure  his  full  liability  in  a  stock  or  mutual  company  or  association. 

The  Illinois  act  provides  that  the  employer,  upon  written  command 
by  the  industrial  board,  must:  (1)  File  with  the  industrial  board  a 
sworn  statement  showing  his  financial  ability  to  pay  the  compensa- 
tion normally  required;  or  (2)  furnish  security,  indemnity,  or  a  bond 
guaranteeing  payment  by  the  employer  of  the  compensation  normally 
required  to  be  paid;  or  (3)  insure  to  a  reasonable  amount  his  normal 
liability  to  pay  such  compensation  in  a  mutual  or  stock  company  or 
association;  or  (4)  make  some  provision,  subject  to  the  approval  of 
the  board,  for  securing  payment  of  the  compensation  provided  for  by 
the  law. 

Under  the  Iowa  act,  which  does  not  take  effect  until  July  1,  1914, 
every  employer  electing  to  accept  the  act  must  insure  his  liability, 
either  in  some  mutual  or  stock  company,  except  upon  proof  of  his 
financial  responsibility,  approved  by  the  insurance  department  of  the 
State  and  the  industrial  commissioner,  or  by  depositing  with  the  in- 
surance department  satisfactory  security. 

Under  the  New  York  act  an  employer  must  secure  compensation 
to  his  employees  either  by  insuring  in  the  State  fund,  a  stock  com- 
pany, or  a  mutual  association,  or  by  furnishing  satisfactory  proof  to 
the  commission  of  his  financial  ability  to  pay  such  compensation 
himself,  in  which  case  the  commission  may,  in  its  discretion,  require 
a  deposit  with  it  of  securities  of  the  kind  prescribed  in  the  insurance 
law,  the  amount  to  be  determined  by  the  commission. 

Arizona,  Rhode  Island,  New  Jersey,  Nebraska,  California,  Minne- 
sota, and  Kansas  do  not,  under  their  compensation  acts,  compel  in- 
surance on  the  part  of  the  employer. 

Under  the  employers'  liability  law  there  had  grown  up  in  this  and 
other  countries  a  system  of  indemnity  insurance  by  which  the  em- 
ployer protected  himself  against  losses  from  liability  damages. 
This  insurance  was  carried  both  in  stock  and  mutual  companies, 
though  some  States  did  not  permit  the  organization  of  mutual  com- 
panies, and  whatever  business  employers  did  in  such  a  case  was  by 
correspondence  between  the  insured  and  the  home  office  of  the  mutual 
company.  These  methods  of  insurance  did  not  protect  the  employee, 
but  were  adopted  by  the  employer  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  him- 
self against  lar^e  and  unexpected  losses  which  might  be  ruinous  to 
his  business  and  of  permitting  him  to  know  to  a  certainty  the  amount 
he  must  pay  yearly.  This  practice  spread  his  losses  over  a  term  of 
years  instead  of  subjecting  nim  to  damages  at  any  particular  time. 
While  indemnifying  the  employer  for  any  amount  he  might  pay  out 
under  the  law,  the  payments  were  generally  made  directly  by  the 
insurance  company  to  the  employee,  and  they  were  often  made 
whether  the  liability  actually  existed  or  was  probable  through  judg- 
ment against  the  employer  in  an  action  at  law.  In  some  cases  small 


REPOKT    OF    COMMISSION.  51 

amounts  were  paid  even  in  the  absence  of  liability  or  where  liability 
if  existing  was  doubtful.  Such  payments  were  usually  conceded  on 
the  theory  that  a  lawsuit  would  involve  expense  and  that  it  was 
economical  to  pay  the  amount  to  the  injured  person  or  his  family 
and  close  the  case.  This  resulted  at  times  in  the  payment  of  ridicu- 
lously small  amounts  for  serious  injuries. 

Statistics  show  that  liability  was  effective  in  about  two  out  of  ten 
cases.  The  extent  of  the  employers'  liability,  of  course,  differed  in 
the  States,  and  the  statutes  of  each  State  changed  from  tune  to  time 
while  jury  awards  varied  in  amount.  This  state  of  affairs  rendered 
liability  uncertain,  involved  litigation  and  wasteful  expense  and. 
resulted  not  only  in  a  large  portion  of  the  premiums  of  mutual  and 
stock  companies  being  expended  in  litigation,  but  also  in  antago- 
nisms between  employer  and  employee  and  between  these  two  and 
the  insurance  companies. 

The  policies  of  the  stock  and  mutual  companies  were  the  same  and 
rndemnified  the  employer  against  loss  under  the  act.  The  funda- 
mental distinction  between  the  two  kinds  of  companies  was  that  the 
stock  company  was  operated  for  the  profit  of  the  stockholders  while 
the  mutual  company  was  intended  to  return  both  profits  and  the 
savings  through  administration  expenses  to  the  policyholders. 
Notwithstanding  the  expected  economies  of  the  mutual  companies 
the  larger  part  of  the  business  was  written  by  stock  companies. 
Employers  were  aware  that  under  the  mutual  companies  they  were 
liable  to  assessment,  an  uncertainty  in  expenditures  not  existing  in 
dealing  with  a  stock  company. 

Under  a  workman's  compensation  law  the  insurance  problem  im- 
mediately changes.  Instead  of  indemnifying  an  employer  against 
uncertain  liability,  actually  occurring  in  only  a  small  percentage  of 
injuries,  the  insurance  is  regularly  made  in  favor  of  the  employee  in 
order  to  pay  amounts  fixed  by  the  statute.  Under  a  compensation 
act  all  doubt  as  to  liability  is  removed,  as  it  exists  in  practically  all 
cases.  The  amount  of  compensation  due  under  the  statutes  involves 
little  litigation,  and  the  tendency  is  toward  elimination.  (See  Sec- 
tion XXII.)  Consequently  this  waste  is  nearly  done  away  with  and 
the  possibility  of  differences,  with  consequent  antagonism  between 
the  employer,  employee,  and  the  insurer  is  proportionately  removed. 
This  is  especially  true,  as  has  already  appeared,  in  those  States  having 
industrial  accident  boards,  where,  the  insurance  being  nearly  if  not 
quite  compulsory,  the  cost  of  soliciting  buisness  is  diminished  and 
quite  surely  will  continue  to  diminish. 

This  commission  has  been  unable  to  find  any  differences  in  the 
treatment  of  the  injured  employee  or  his  family  in  those  States  in 
which  insurance  is  written  either  by  stock  companies  or  mutual 
companies,  or  by  a  State  insurance  fund,  or  through  the  employer 
carrying  his  own  risk.  As  to  these  four  methods  of  insurance,  the 
law  seems  to  be  complied  with  through  one  mode  as  well  as  through 
any  other,  while  payments  are  equally  prompt.  In  fact,  if  evidence 
of  any  difference  at  all  has  appeared  it  has  existed  in  the  case  of  small 
employers  who,  not  having  had  many  accidents,  have  not  become 
familiar  with  the  law  to  the  same  extent  as  have  the  large  employers 
and  the  mutual  or  stock  companies  or  insurance  fund  officials.  From 
the  employers'  standpoint,  no  objection  was  brought  forward  in  the 


52  WORKMEN  's    COMPENSATION. 

States  having  eithei  or  all  of  these  methods  of  insurance.  The  em- 
ployees evinced  an  interest  in  the  method  of  insurance  only  in  so  far 
as  it  might  increase  the  cost  of  insurance  and  thus  bring  the  employers 
to  oppose  the  establishment  of  what  the  workmen  feel  to  be  a  proper 
schedule  of  compensation.  Employers  stated  to  the  commission 
that  as  they  are  paying  twice  as  much  for  compensation  now  as  they 
did  for  liability  insurance  under  the  old  law,  they  feel  that  if  they  are 
willing  to  stand  that  extra  cost  they  ought  to  be  given  the  widest 
latitude  possible  in  adopting  any  methods  of  insurance  not  injurious 
to  the  employees'  interests.  This  desire  on  the  part  of  the  em- 
ployers is  very  general;  even  in  Ohio  a  large  employer  who  voluntarily 
accepted  the  Ohio  law  and  its  methods  ol  insurance  stated  to  this 
commission  that  while  he  was  satisfied  with  the  Ohio  law  as  at 
present  working  he  would  prefer  that  it  give  employers  an  option  as 
to  their  method  of  insuring.  The  feeling  of  employers  upon  this  sub- 
ject was  expressed  by  a  representative  of  the  safety  committee  of 
the  Illinois  Steel  Co.,  which  had  accepted  the  compensation  acts  of 
all  the  States  in  which  it  has  plants,  when  he  said : 

In  my  judgment,  the  wider  the  options  given  to  the  employers  in  that  respect  the 
greater  the  satisfaction  the  compensation  act  will  give.  For  instance,  many  men  do 
not  look  at  the  matter  in  the  same  light.  Some  of  the  employers  prefer  to  take  out 
indemnity  insurance;  some  prefer  to  carry  their  own  insurance;  some  prefer  to  insure 
in  a  mutual  company;  some  prefer  to  deposit  the  money  in  a  bank  or  trust  company 
for  the  benefit  of  the  injured  person;  and  there  might  be  other  ways.  If  you  can  give 
the  employers  the  widest  options  in  respect  to  the  matter,  or  the  widest  latitude  in 
the  terms,  employers  will  be  better  friends  (of  compensation)  and  the  workmen  will 
receive  just  as  much  protection.  Therefore,  I  believe  the  optional  plan  is  much 
preferable. 

Employers  naturally  exhibited  an  active  interest  hi  the  cost  and 
administration  of  the  law.  Anxious  to  have  access  to  the  different 
methods  of  insurance  consistent  with  a  proper  protection  of  the 
employee,  they  were  opposed  to  giving  the  stock  companies  an 
exclusive  field,  and  as  a  result  the  laws  of  several  of  the  States  have 
been  so  amended  as  to  permit  the  organization  of  mutual  companies 
and  the  establishment  of  State  insurance  funds.  Xo  opposition  to 
the  organization  of  State  insurance  was  to  be  found  except  where 
the  State  fund  was  made  the  only  insurance  medium.  The  cir- 
cumstance that  the  mutual  companies  are  not  writing  as  much 
business  as  the  stock  companies,  or  that  State  insurance  funds  may 
be  doing  less  business  than  the  stock  companies,  does  not  signify 
that  these  methods  are  not  essential.  The  fact  that  employers  who 
feel  that  the  rates  of  stock  companies  are  too  high  may  turn  to  the 
mutual  company  or  the  State  insurance  fund  has  a  healthy  effect. 
It  has  resulted  indeed  in  reducing  the  compensation  insurance  rates. 
Since  the  enactment  of  compensation  laws  reduction  has  taken  place 
among  all  three  classes  of  insurers.  The  work  of  mutual  companies 
is  in  its  infancy;  many  have  been  organized  since  the  adoption  of 
the  compensation  acts,  and  the  method  may  be  expected  to  grow  in 
favor  as  employers  become  educated  to  its  value. 

Debate  is  being  carried  on  among  State  insurance  fund  officials, 
mutual  companies  and  stock  companies,  as  to  which  will  prove  the 
most  effective  agent  in  accident  prevention.  This  rivalry  is  whole- 
som?.  It  is  claimed  by  some  that  State  insurance  fund  officials  will 
not  have  the  incentive  and  elasticity  of  administration  and  of  merit 
rating  that  exists  among  mutual  and  stock  companies.  This  is  a 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  53 

matter  for  future  development.  Some  employers  say  that  thev  see 
no  reason  why  State  fund  officials,  acting  under  the  spur  of  competi- 
tion with  the  mutual  and  stock  companies,  can  not  administer  these 
funds  as  well  as  the  companies,  provided  politics  is  eliminated  and 
honest,  capable  men  appointed  to  office.  The  mutual  companies 
hold  that  it  will  be  for  the  common  interest  of  employers  in  this 
form  of  organization  to  keep  down  accidents  in  order  to  increase 
dividends  and  lower  rates.  Officers  of  stock  companies  assert  that 
witb  their  own  officiate  working  under  the  spur  of  the  competition 
with  mutual  companies  and  States  insurance  they  will  be  under  a 
strong  incentive  to  preserve  their  business  and  retain  their  positions. 
It  is  immaterial  how  the  employers  insure  so  long  as  the  insurance 
protects  the  workmen. 

POLICIES  FOR   BENEFIT   OF   WORKMEN   AND   FOR  UNLIMITED  LIABILITY. 

In  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  Iowa,  and 
Texas  all  insurance  policies  under  compensation  acts  are  required 
to  be  issued  for  unlimited  liability  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  employees. 
In  Michigan  and  Wisconsin  the  law  does  not  so  provide,  but  the 
Industrial  Accident  Board  requires  that  all  employers  who  accept  the 
act  must  take  out  insurance  of  that  kind.  New  Jersey  does  not 
require  unlimited  insurance  and  has  no  industrial  accident  board  to 
impose  this  provision,  but  the  companies  writing  insurance  in  that 
State  and  in  California  are  issuing  policies  for  unlimited  amounts, 
payable  to  the  employees  and  their  families,  regardless  of  the  possible 
insolvency  of  the  employer,  so  that  employees  are  fully  protected  by 
the  policies  in  vogue  in  all  the  States  mentioned.  The  insurance 
companies  protect  every  policy  in  case  of  catastrophe  by  forming  a 
reinsurance  bureau,  contributed  to  by  all  the  companies,  out  of  which 
all  claims  for  a  single  accident  in  excess  of  $25,000  are. paid. 

CARRYING    OWN    RISK. 

Up  to  the  present  time,  the  officials  passing  upon  the  financial 
responsibility  of  employers  applying  for  permission  to  carry  their 
own  risk  in  those  States  requiring  insurance,  in  the  absence  of  special 
permission,  have  apparently  complied  with  the  spirit  and  purpose  of 
the  statutes  by  granting  the  privilege  in  only  a  small  number  of 
cases. 

In  Michigan,  out  of  10,700  employers  who  have  accepted  the  act, 
only  617  have  been  permitted  to  cam"  their  own  risk. 

In  Wisconsin,  where  the  number  of  employers  coining  under  the 
act  can  not  be  definitely  determined  for  the  reason  that  all  employers 
of  the  State  are  under  the  act  except  those  who  have  rejected  it,  only 
about  400  employers  have  been  given  permission  by  the  industrial 
commission  to  carry  their  own  risk. 

In  New  Jersey,  Rhode  Island,  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  and  Kansas, 
where  no  insurance  requirements  are  made,  it  is  impossible  to  tell 
how  many  employers  are  carrying  their  own  risk. 

The  compensation  acts  have  not  been  in  force  long  enough  to 
determine  what  proportion  of  deferred  payments  will  never  be  paid 
on  account  of  the  failure  of  the  employer  to  insure  the  employee. 

Some  large  employers  in  Massachusetts  who  have  accepted  the 
compensation  act  have  taken  their  insurance  in  the  Massachusetts 


54  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Employees'  Insurance  Association,  and  each  member  has  been  placed 
by  that  association  in  a  special  class,  so  that  no  one  of  them  is  affected 
by  the  conduct  of  other  employers,  and  each  receives  in  dividends 
its  own  savings,  less  the  proportion  of  the  premiums  used  for  the 
payment  of  overhead  expenses  of  the  association. 

There  is  considerable  demand  on  the  part  of  large  employers  for 
permission  to  carry  their  risk  without  insurance.  They  recognize 
the  danger  to  the  employee  of  such  a  plan  unless  it  is  carefully  safe- 
guarded, but  claim  that  it  ought  to  be  permitted  in  cases  of  undoubted 
solvency,  attended  with  the  power  of  a  board  or  commission  to  revoke 
the  privilege  whenever  the  employer's  financial  soundness  becomes 
doubtful.  However,  this  revocation,  while  protecting  employees 
injured  later,  would  not  protect  employees  injured  previously  and 
entitled  to  deferred  payments  running  through  a  long  period  during 
which  the  employer  might  become  insolvent.  The  latter  situation 
might  be  avoided  by  giving  the  State  accident  board  power,  first, 
to  require  a  bond,  deposit  or  other  security  for  deferred  payments  in 
case  the  financial  condition  of  the  employer  warranted  such  a  step; 
and,  secondly,  to  decide  that  upon  the  failure  to  make  the  deposit  or 
give  the  bond  or  other  security,  the  employee  should  be  entitled  to 
a  judgment  for  the  full  amount  of  the  deferred  payments. 

The  arguments  offered  to  this  commission  in  support  of  permitting 
employers  of  undoubted  financial  ability  to  carry  their  own  risk  are : 
(1)  The  economy  of  administration,  greatly  reducing  cost;  (2)  the 
existence  of  safety  committees  and  well-administered  schemes  of 
accident  prevention,  reducing  accidents  and  giving  the  employer  a 
financial  benefit  in  the  lessened  cost  of  compensation;  (3)  the  exist- 
ence of  well-equipped  hospital  accommodations  and  a  well-organized 
surgical  force,  giving  immediate  relief  to  injured  employees  and 
diminishing  the  cost  of  medical  attendance;  (4)  the  prevention  of 
the  relation  of  employer  and  employee  from  being  severed  during 
the  existence  of  temporary  injury;  (5)  the  increased  interest  on  the 
part  of  the  employer  in  accident  prevention,  certain  as  he  is  to  receive 
a  financial  benefit  resulting  from  the  reduction  of  accidents  and  from 
the  resultant  decrease  of  compensation  cost;  whereas,  if  he  should 
carry  insurance,  it  must,  under  the  very  best  merit  system,  remain 
questionable  as  to  whether  or  not  he  could  receive  all  the  financial 
saving  arising  from  the  reduction  of  accidents  in  his  plant. 

In  Massachusetts,  large  employers  with  pay  rolls  running  as  high 
as  $2,000,000  annually  refused  to  accept  the  compensation  act, 
giving  as  their  reason  that  it  would  require  them  to  carry  insurance. 
The  argument  in  favor  of  permitting  the  employer  to  carry  his  own 
risk,  and  thus  to  keep  in  touch  with  his  employee  during  his  injury, 
retaining  the  relation  of  employer  and  employee,  so  that  the  injured 
man  could  readily  return  to  his  position  after  injury,  applies  only  in 
case  of  temporary  injuries  or  those  which  do  not  totally  incapacitate 
the  employee,  but  permit  him  to  work  for  the  same  employer  at 
some  other  than  his  habitual  employment,  paying  him  more  than 
the  compensation  act,  and  at  the  same  time  benefiting  the  employer 
and  reducing  the  amount  he  should  have  to  pay  him  in  the  form  of 
compensation.  It  was  admitted  that  this  argument  does  not  apply 
to  injuries  that  result  in  death  or  that  unfit  the  employee  for  working 
again  for  the  same  employer.  With  regard  to  these  cases,  employers 
seem  to  be  willing  to  have  the  responsibility  of  making  the  weekly 
payments  transferred  to  some  third  party,  either  an  insurance  com- 


EEPOET    OF    COMMISSION.  55 

pany,  a  surety  company,  a  bank  or  other  depository.  In  fact,  the 
amendment  to  the  Illinois  statute,  recently  adopted,  which  permits 
the  employer,  even  when  not  insured,  to  transfer  his  liability  to  an 
agency  of  this  kind,  was  the  result  of  a  demand  by  employers  of  that 
State. 

Under  the  new  Illinois  act  any  employer  against  whom  liability  may 
exist  for  compensation  may,  with  the  approval  of  the  industrial  board, 
be  relieved  therefrom  by  depositing  the  present  value  of  the  total 
unpaid  compensation  for  which  liability  exists,  computed  at  3  per  cent 
per  annum,  with  the  State  treasurer  or  county  treasurer  in  the  county 
where  the  accident  happens,  or  with  any  State  or  national  bank  doing 
business  in  that  State,  or  in  some  other  suitable  depository  approved 
by  the  industrial  board,  the  same  to  be  paid  out  in  installments  to  the 
beneficiary,  unless  commuted  to  a  lump  sum  or  by  the  purchase  of  an 
annuity  in  any  insurance  company  granting  annuities  and  licensed  to 
do  business. 

An  officer  of  the  Illinois  Coal  Operators'  Mutual  Liability  Insurance 
Co.  stated  before  this  commission  that  the  above  provision  was  placed 
in  the  new  Illinois  act  "  at  the  earnest  request  of  the  employers  of  that 
State."  "There  was,"  he  said,  "a  very  strong  opposition  expressed 
to  the  idea  of  carrying  on  a  pension  system.  While  we  realize  in  many 
cases  it  might  be  beneficial  and  to  the  interest  of  persons  receiving 
compensation  to  receive  the  amount  of  the  sum  in  periodical  pay- 
ments rather  than  in  a  lump  sum,  we  felt  that  the  State  should  assume 
the  details  of  the  work  in  connection  with  that  system  and  not  impose 
the  burden  on  business  men." 

MAKING   DEPOSIT. 

Another  method  of  protecting  employees  against  their  employer's 
insolvency,  which,  however,  has  not  been  exercised  to  any  great 
extent,  is  authorized  under  several  of  the  statutes.  By  it  the  em- 
ployer is  permitted,  after  compensation  has  been  fixed,  to  relieve  him- 
self from  further  liability  by  making  a  sufficient  deposit  in  a  bank  for 
the  benefit  of  beneficiaries.  The  Michigan  Workmen's  Compensation 
Mutual  Insurance  Co.  follows  this  plan  with  all  its  deferred  payments 
by  depositing  in  the  Union  Trust  Co.  of  Detroit  the  amount  to  which 
the  beneficiary  is  entitled  and  issuing  to  him  a  book  of  coupons  or 
checks  executed  and  payable  weekly.  This  plan  has  merit  in  the  case 
of  uninsured  employers,  as  it  protects  the  employee  against  future 
insolvency  of  the  employer  and  imparts  a  sense  of  security  to  the 
beneficiary,  who,  knowing  that  the  amount  has  been  deposited  to  his 
credit  in  the  bank,  can  draw  upon  it  weekly  or  transfer  the  weekly 
payment  to  his  personal  credit.  This  latter  condition,  by  the  state- 
ment of  witnesses,  has  actually  occurred. 

It  was  generally  conceded  by  employers  that,  unless  the  law  made 
insurance  compulsory  in  all  cases,  it  ought  to  require  that  those  who 
do  not  insure  the  employees  must  after  liability  accrues  make  the 
necessary  deposit  or  else  have  judgment  entered  against  them  for  the 
full  amount,  the  proceeds  of  the  judgment,  if  collected,  to  be  placed 
to  the  credit  of  the  beneficiary  under  the  same  conditions.  This 
would  protect  the  employee  against  future  insolvency  of  the  employer, 
but  would  not  protect  him  against  insolvency  existing  at  the  time  of 
the  accident  or  of  the  entry  of  the  judgment.  The  protection  against 


56  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

present  insolvency  could  be  strengthened  by  making  the  judgment  a 
preferred  claim,  even  as  against  mortgages  or  other  liens  created  after 
the  enactment  of  the  law. 

XXV.  COST  OF  COMPENSATION. 

There  has  not  been  sufficient  experience  under  compensation 
laws  iii  this  country  to  determine  just  the  amount  of  the  burden,  if 
any,  placed  upon  employers  by  these  laws.  There  is  no  doubt  but 
that  upon  the  whole  the  cost  to  employers  is  considerably  more  than 
the  cost  under  liability  laws  as  they  existed  at  the  time  of  the  adop- 
tion of  the  compensation  acts.  While  here  and  there  one  finds  an 
employer  whose  cost  has  been  less  under  the  compensation  act  than 
it  had  previously  been  under  liability  laws,  this  condition  is  prin- 
cipally due  to  the  limited  experience  that  these  particular  employers 
have  had.  It  can  not  be  definitely  ascertained  whether  or  not' the 
compensation  act  is  costing  employers  more  than  the  liability  law, 
with  the  three  defenses  taken  away,  would  have  cost  them  for  the 
reason  that  comparatively  few  employers  have  remained  under  the 
liability  law  since  these  changes  were  made,  and  the  experience 
of  those  remaining  under  it  has  been  too  short.  As  pointed  out  in 
Section  III,  in  the  absence  of  compensation  acts,  tne  employers' 
liability  would  eventually  have  been  greatly  increased  over  what  it 
is  at  present. 

It  is  argued  by  many  that  the  cost  of  workmen's  compensation 
does  not  place  a  burden  upon  employers  or  upon  industry,  as  it 
merely  regulates  a  burden  that  already  exists  hi  some  form  or  other, 
and  distributes  it  by  means  of  insurance,  the  cost  of  which,  is  eventu- 
ally paid  by  the  public. 

While  some  employers  complained  of  the  increased  burden  placed 
upon  them  by  the  compensation  act,  the  commission  found  the 
general  fseling  among  them  that  the  increased  cost  was  not  a  real 
burden  and  that  there  was  a  general  willingness  to  pay  it  rather 
than  to  revert  to  the  old  system  of  employers'  liability.  They  feel 
that  compensation  places  one  of  the  problems  arising  out  of  the 
relation  of  employer  and  employee  upon  a  just  basis;  and  that  the 
cost,  falling  upon  all  employers,  is  added  to  the  selling  prices  of 
then1  commodities  and  is  paid  by  the  public.  This  condition  is 
brought  about  more  readily  in  some  industries  than  in  others.  It 
constitutes  an  addition  to  the  labor  cost  which,  instead  of  being 
paid  out  in  the  form  of  wages  to  be  expended  by  the  workman  upon 
their  every-day  living  expenses,  is  placed  in  some  one  of  the  different 
forms  of  insurance  funds  to  be  saved  for  the  day  when  misfortune 
overtakes  the  unfortunate  victim  of  industrial  accident  while  he  is 
engaged  in  producing  the  commodities  or  supplying  the  services 
essential  to  the  existence  and  happiness  of  the  consumer.  This 
docs  not  mean  that  the  actual  cost  to  the  public  is  necessarily  increased, 
as  a  large  part  of  this  cost  is  directly  borne  by  the  public  without  a 
compensation  act  in  the  expenses  of  charities,  court  proceedings, 
and  otherwise.  The  commission  has  not  been  able  to  determine 
definitely  how  much  the  court  expenses  will  be  reduced,  but  esti- 
mates have  been  made,  which  it  believes  are  fairly  accurate,  that  in 
large  industrial  centers  at  least  a  third  of  the  time  of  the  trial  courts 
has  been  consumed  in  employers'  liability  litigation.  This  is  all 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  57 

removed'  under  a  compensation  act  so  far  as  the  trial  courts  are 
concerned.  If  these  figures  are  correct,  the  cost  of  jury  fees  will 
be  reduced  one-third  in  manufacturing  centers.  To  illustrate,  hi  a 
county  in  the  State  of  New  York,  having  a  population  of  about 
300,000,  the  jurors'  foes  amounted  to  $44,883.17  during  the  year  end- 
ing September  30,  1912;  if  these  are  reduced  one-third,  the  saving 
to  that  county  will  be  approximately  $14,000  in  jury  fees  alone. 
The  overseer  of  the  poor  01  a  larg?  city  in  the  Middle  West  stated 
that  the  expense  of  his  ofhce  and  the  amount  paid  out  for  poor 
relief  has  been  reduced  25  per  cent.  A  saving  of  poor-relief  cost  as 
a  result  of  a  compensation  act  means  more  than  the  saving  of  the 
cost  arising  directly  from  industrial  accidents,  for  the  reason  that 
where  injured  employees  or  their  families  are  placed  hi  a  position 
where  they  are  compelled  to  seek  relief  of  this  kind,  there  is  danger 
that  some  of  them  will  be  weak  enough  to  acquire  the  habit,  and 
continue  to  seek  such  relief  in  later  years,  although  the  direct  result 
of  the  injury  has  been  remedied. 

A  member  of  the  Massachusetss  industrial  accident  board  made 
the  following  deductions  for  the  commission: 

By  the  reduction  in  the  number  of  accidents  and  a  lessening  of  their  severity, 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  in  insurance  premiums,  now  paid  because  of  present 
conditions,  will  be  saved;  just  as  fire  insurance  premiums  are  most  materially  reduced 
for  those  who  take  steps  to  safeguard  against  fire. 

Nearly  one-half  of  the  money  now  spent  for  workmen's  compensation  insurance 
can  be  saved  to  the  employers,  while  the  wage  earners  will  save  the  loss  of  the  half- 
wages  they  now  lose  when  under  compensation,  for  they  will  not  be  injured  and  will 
therefore  keep  at  work  continuously  instead  of  suffering  pain  personally,  and  their 
families  privation,  if  not  actual  want.  Through  this  saving,  other  and  material 
benefits  will  accrue  to  the  employees. 

The  present  source  of  social  waste  runs  into  enormous  figures.  It  is  estimated  by 
those  who  have  made  a  study  of  industrial  accidents  that  50  per  cent  or  more  of  such 
accidents  are  preventable:  25  per  cent,  judging  from  experience  in  those  great  work- 
shops where  this  matter  has  been  given  most  serious  attention,  can  be  prevented 
by  the  adoption  of  safety  devices;  from  25  to  40  per  cent  can  be  eliminated  by  educa- 
tional work,  instilling  the  safety  idea  into  the  minds  of  the  workers  and,  in  fact,  of  all 
the  people  in  this  Commonwealth. 

The  only  information  that  this  commission  has  received  upon 
the  subject  of  increased  cost  under  workmen's  compensation  laws 
is  that  derived  from  526  employers  in  different  States,  who  reported 
their  cost  under  the  act  with  a  comparative  statement  of  their  cost 
under  the  liability  law  for  a  similar  period.  These  employers  have 
paid  under  the  compensation  acts  a  total  of  $1,215,690.50,  and  for 
a  similar  period  the  same  employers  paid  under  the  liability  law, 
either  in  the  form  of  insurance  premiums  or  in  payments  direct  to 
their  employees,  or  both,  the  sum  of  $730,857.24.  These  reports, 
divided  into  States,  are  as  follows: 


State. 

Paid  under 
compensa- 
tion act. 

Paid  under 
liability 
law. 

California 

519  500  39 

$19  198.25 

Illinois  . 

295  464.98 

254,  020.  61 

Kansas 

2  656  85 

2  058.90 

Massachusetts  

212,  782.  89 

75,262.86 

Michigan. 

328  774.00 

158,  838.  22 

New  Jersey 

19  550  45 

8  803.82 

Ohio  

52,  435.  12 

32,881.73 

Rhode  Island 

69,368.99 

23,416.87 

Washington 

166  547.53 

120  399  46 

Wisconsin  

50,  608.  30 

36,  026.  52 

58  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

The  Massachusetts  industrial  accident  board,  in  its  report  for  1913, 
publishes  the  result  of  its  investigation  as  to  the  amounts  paid  benefi- 
ciaries of  employees  who  were  not  under  the  compensation  act  and 
the  amounts  such  beneficiaries  would  have  received  had  the  employees 
been  uder  the  compensation  act.  The  board  found  that  such  bene- 
ficiaries received  only  $60,322.42,  an  average  amount  in  each  case 
of  $701.42,  whereas  had  the  employees  been  under  the  compensation 
act,  the  beneficiaries  would  have  received  $164,488,  an  average  of 
$1,900.57  in  each  case. 

STATISTICS. 

No  real  knowledge  of  the  operation  of  workmen's, compensation 
acts  can  be  acquired  until  complete  statistics  have  been  gathered. 
This  is  distinctly  a  public  function,  as  the  statistics  should  be  gathered 
as  a  public  benefit  and  be  open  to  the  use  of  all.  Some  of  the  States 
have  recognized  this  necessity  by  requiring  that  State  boards  shall 
compile  statistics.  In  those  which  have  attempted  such  work  the 
experience  has  been  too  short  to  reach  a  conclusion,  but  a  good  start 
has  been  made.  However,  this  commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
appropriations  made  in  the  different  States  have  been  inadequate 
properly  to  organize  statistical  departments.  Injustice  that  may 
exist  through  the  law  can  not  be  remedied  until  the  facts  are  known, 
and  the  facts  can  not  be  known  until  complete  statistics  have  been 
compiled.  The  insurance  features  of  the  law  can  not  be  worked  out 
properly  in  the  absence  of  statistics.  The  commission  found  every- 
where a  demand  for  statistical  information.  The  State  commissions 
are  doing  their  part  but  are  handicapped  by  lack  of  funds.  This 
commission  has  no  hesitancy  in  reaching  the  conclusion  that  the  people 
of  the  several  States  are  anxious  to  have  created  and  maintained 
well-equipped  statistical  departments.  There  are  presented  herewith 
such  statistics  as  the  commission  has  been  able  to  compile  through 
the  courtesy  of  the  different  industrial  accident  boards.  (See 
Appendix  No.  7A.) 

XXVI.  SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS. 

In  conclusion,  the  commission  found  that  workmen's  compensation 
acts,  either  compulsory  or  elective,  have  in  a  large  part  of  the  country 
become  the  prevailing  method  of  adjusting  the  financial  losses  in- 
flicted upon  workmen  by  industrial  accidents,  and  that  not  only  are 
more  than  5,000,000  workmen  now  operating  under  compensation 
laws,  but  that  laws  going  into  effect  during  the  coming  year  will  bring 
several  million  more  workmen  under  this  system.  Even  elective  acts 
have  been  so  generally  accepted  by  -employers  and  employees  in 
States  where  they  are  in  force  that  in  those  instances  a  vast  majority 
of  industrial  accidents  are  covered.  In  those  States  that  have  had 
experience  under  the  law  general  satisfaction  is  given  both  to  em- 
ployer and  employee,  and  the  opinion  is  generally  expressed  by  those 
whom  the  commission  met  that  such  principle  will  soon  be  the  ruling 
doctrine  throughout  the  country.  Nevertheless,  here  and  there  an 
employer  was  found  who,  owing  largely  to  his  peculiar  kind  of  business 
or  his  particular  experience,  criticizes  the  principle  of  the  law.  These 
cases,  however,  were  scattered  and  were  confined  as  a  rule  to  men 
who  had  few  if  any  accidents  in  their  plants.  Some  employers  had 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  59 

not  accepted  the  law  for  the  reason  that  they  were  carrying  on  plans 
of  their  own  which  they  considered  better. 

While  at  the  outset  the  compensation  acts  were  not  exclusive,  but 
were  given  in  addition  to  the  workmen's  common-law  right  of  action 
for  negligence,  the  tendency  to  make  the  compensation  remedy  the 
exclusive  one  has  grown  until  now  the  majority  of  the  statutes 
furnish  an  exclusive  remedy,  and  it  can  be  well  said  that  the  principle 
of  making  the  remedy  exclusive,  provided  the  compensation  is 
adequate,  is  now  accepted  by  both  employers  and  workmen  as  the 
proper  method. 

The  laws  have  improved  the  relation  existing  between  the  employer 
and  employee;  they  have  had  a  marked  effect  upon  accident  preven- 
tion by  calling  attention  to  the  subject  and  exciting  interest  in  safe- 
guarding machinery  and  in  the  organization  of  safety  committees, 
and  they  have  created  a  general  campaign  for  accident  prevention. 
The  difficulties  feared  by  some  employers  and  some  workmen  have 
not,  to  any  great  extent,  materialized  under  the  actual  operation  of 
the  laws;  while  the  commission  heard  some  statements  to  the  effect 
that  the  laws  lead  to  fraud,  deception,  and  malingering  on  the  part  of 
employees,  and  discrimination  by  employers  against  certain  classes 
of  workmen,  these  complaints  have  generally  come  from  those  who 
have  had  little  or  no  experience  under  such  a  law,  or  have  had  so  few 
accidents  in  their  establishments  that  their  opinion  can  hardly  be 
considered  against  those  of  men  at  the  head  of  establishments  who 
have  had  a  large  and  active  experience  even  in  the  short  time  that 
the  laws  have  been  in  effect.  The  latter  class  of  employers  generally 
stated  that  they  have  found  little,  if  any,  malingering  or  deception; 
that  that  can  be  avoided;  and  that  the  laws  are  easy  in  administra- 
tion and  fair  in  their  operation.  However,  it  is  claimed  by  some 
that  there  has  not  been  sufficient  experience,  during  the  short  time 
that  the  statutes  have  been  in  force  in  the  United  States,  for  these 
troubles  to  develop;  that  they  do  exist  in  European  countries;  and 
that  they  will  develop  here  unless  the  administration  of  the  laws  is 
safeguarded  in  these  respects.  (See  extract  from  Report  of  Massa- 
chusetts Industrial  Accident  Board,  Appendix  No.  5a.) 

In  the  States  where  there  are  industrial  accident  boards  having 
power  to  pass  upon  settlement  agreements,  to  make  rules  and  regu- 
lations, to  require  the  filing  of  receipts  showing  the  actual  payments 
of  compensation  to  the  men,  and  having  arbitrations  and  hearings 
before  them  in  cases  of  dispute,  there  was  found  no  danger  from  fraud 
or  deception  on  the  part  either  of  the  employer  or  the  workman.  In 
these  States  the  law  is  being  fairly  administered,  and  employees  are 
receiving  promptly  their  full  compensation  under  the  law.  It  is 
evident  that  the  law  can  not  be  well  administered  except  through  a 
board  or  officials  charged  with  powers  and  duties  similar  to  those  of 
the  existing  State  boards. 

It  is  the  general  opinion  both  of  employers  and  workmen  in  the 
States  covered  by  this  inquiry  that  all  employments — with  the  possible 
exception  of  farm  labor,  domestic  servants,  and  casual  employments — 
should  be  included,  and  that  any  restricted  classification  is  not  only 
unjust  but  leads  to  confusion  and  uncertainty. 

The  subject  of  medical  attention  to  injured  employees  is  one  of 
utmost  importance.  With  a  few  exceptions,  the  States  require  that 
the  employer,  in  addition  to  the  compensation,  shall  pay  the  medical 


60  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

bills  of  the  injured  workmen,  with  certain  restrictions.  Outside  of 
the  State  of  Washington,  the  commission  found  no  sentiment  opposed 
to  tliis  requirement,  it  being  generally  conceded  that  the  workman 
is  not  only  entitled  to  medical  treatment  hi  addition  to  his  compen- 
sation, but  that  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  employer  and  society  to  see 
that  he  receives  it,  thereby  to  minimize  the  extent  of  the  disability. 
There  has  been  a  great  deal  of  discussion,  however,  with  regard  to 
the  cost  of  medical  service.  Various  methods  have  been  suggested 
and  are  now  being  worked  out  in  different  States  for  the  purpose  of 
reducing  this  cost  which  amounts  to  a  sum  equal  to  40  or  50  per  cent 
of  the  amount  of  compensation  received  by  the  workmen. 

The  amount  of  compensation  has  aroused  considerable  discussion, 
and  it  varies  from  50  to  66§  per  cent  of  the  wages  of  the  injured 
employee,  with  minimum  and  maximum  weekly  amounts  varying  in 
different  States,  to  be  paid  during  the  period  of  his  incapacity  or,  as 
hi  some  States,  limited  to  specified  periods,  with  definite  allowances 
for  amputations  and  certain  enumerated  injuries.  While  employers, 
in  States  paying  only  50  per  cent  of  the  injured  workmen's  wages, 
feel  that  their  schedules  are  fair  and  are  fearful  of  the  effects  of 
increasing  the  percentage,  there  is  not  much  complaint  from  em- 
ployers in  States  having  a  higher  rate  of  compensation.  Employers 
do,  however,  insist  that  the  amount  of  compensation  should"  be 
definite  and  certain,  with  as  much  uniformity  between  the  different 
States  as  possible,  and  with  the  statutes  so  drawn  as  to  avoid  uncer- 
tainties and  litigation  with  its  consequent  waste.  There  is  consid- 
erable sentiment  among  employers  in  favor  of  having  the  elective  acts 
made  compulsory  so  that  the  cost  will  be  uniform.  Among  working- 
men  the  sentiment  for  compulsory  compensation  laws  is  practically 
uniform,  and  the  tendency  of  legislation  is  in  the  direction  of  com- 
pulsory enactments.  This  is  evidenced  by  the  recent  change  in  Ohio 
and  California  from  elective  to  compulsory  acts,  and  by  the  adoption 
in  New  York  State  of  a  compulsory  act. 

Litigation,  so  far  as  accidents  to  workmen  are  concerned,  has  been 
practically  eliminated  in  the  States  in  which  compensation  acts  have 
been  generally  accepted  by  employers.  About  2  per  cent  only  of  the 
compensation  cases  are  disputed  so  as  to  require  arbitration;  not 
more  than  10  cases  out  of  10,000  compensation  cases  have  gone  into 
the  courts.  The  payments  of  compensation  to  employees  are  prompt 
and  usually  commence  at  the  end  of  the  second  or  third  week,  and 
where  arbitration  is  had,  the  payments  are  not  delayed  on  an  average 
more  than  three  or  four  weeks. 

One  of  the  most  difficult  problems,  and  one  that  has  caused  more 
diversity  of  views  than  any  other,  is  that  of  protecting  the  injured 
workman  against  the  insolvency  of  his  employer.  As  the  payments 
are  not  usually  made  in  lump  sum  but  extend  in  some  cases  through 
a  long  series  of  years,  this  is  important  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
workman  and  his  family.  The  commission  found  it  generally  accepted 
by  employers  that  the  workman  was  entitled  to  as  full  protection  in 
this  respect  as  possible.  The  only  difference  in  opinion  was  as  to  the 
method  of  protecting  him  or  insuring  him.  In  most  States  the  com- 
mission found  the  workman  indifferent  as  to  the  method  of  protection 
so  long  as  he  was  properly  insured  against  default  on  the  part  of  the 
employer.  A  strong  feeling  existed  among  employers  against  being 


REPORT    OF    COMMISSION.  61 

restricted  in  their  methods  of  insuring.  Many  large  employers  wanted 
to  carry  their  own  risks  without  insurance,  provided  they  could  show 
that  their  financial  condition  would  warrant  it,  claiming  that  in  that 
way  they  could  better  carry  on  their  safety  plans.  Employers, 
generally,  objected  to  being  confined  to  any  particular  class  of  insur- 
ance. Some  wanted  power  to  create  mutual  insurance  companies 
and,  in  most  States,  laws  have  been  passed  permitting  this;  others 
desired  permission  to  insure  in  stock  companies;  while  others  wanted 
the  State  to  create  an  insurance  fund  by  assessment  upon  employers. 
There  was  found  no  great  objection  among  employers  to  either  of 
these  three  forms  of  insurance,  provided  the  employer  is  not  restricted 
to  any  one  method  but  is  given  the  option  of  procuring  his  insurance 
through  either  one  of  them.  In  States  in  which  either  of  these 
methods,  or  all  of  them,  were  in  operation,  there  was  little,  if  any, 
complaint  as  to  the  methods  of  making  settlements  or  payments.  It 
was  generally  felt  that,  with  an  industrial  accident  board  passing 
upon  all  settlements  and  determining  all  differences  and  with  such 
other  restrictions  and  regulations  as  might  be  necessary,  both  em- 
ployer and  employee  were  protected  under  these  three  methods  of 
insurance,  and  that  the  employer  received  the  benefit  of  the  compe- 
tition resulting  between  them.  The  mutual  companies  have  un- 
doubtedly, by  their  competition,  aided  in  the  reduction  of  rates  to  a 
larger  extent  than  the  amount  of  their  business  would  indicate,  as 
they  furnish  a  field  to  which  employers  can  go  in  case  they  feel  that 
the  rates  of  stock  companies  are  too  high.  This  is  also  true  of  the 
State  insurance  funds,  except  that  they  have  been  organized  to  a 
less  extent  and  have  done  a  smaller  business  than  the -mutual 
companies. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

CYRUS  W.  PHILLIPS,  Chairman, 
J.  WALTER  LORD, 
OTTO  M.  EIDLITZ, 
Louis  B.  SCHRAM, 
JAMES  DUNCAN, 
JOHN  MITCHELL, 
Commission  to  Study  Operation  of 

State  Workmen 's  Compensation  Laws. 
JANUARY  15,  1914. 


APPENDIX. 


No.  1.  DIGEST  OF  PRINCIPAL  PROVISIONS  OF  STATUTES  IN  FORCE 

JANUARY  1,  1914. 

(l)    ELECTION — HOW    MADE. 

Arizona. — Elective  with  respect  to  nonhazardous  employments  only. 
(Compulsory  on  employers  engaged  in  enumerated  hazardous 
employments.)  Election  made  by  agreement  between  em- 
ployer and  employee. 

Connecticut. — Contracts  of  employment  conclusively  presumed  to  in- 
clude mutual  agreement  between  employer  and  employee  to 
accept  unless  contract  contains  written  stipulation  to  the 
contrary,  or  unless  a  written  or  printed  notice  indicating  a 
refusal  to  accept  the  act  is  made  by  one  party  to  the  other 
and  to  the  compensation  commissioner  of  the  district  in 
which  the  employee  is  employed. 

Illinois. — Acceptance  is  presumed  as  to  certain  classes  of  employers 
enumerated  in  the  statute  in  the  absence  of  a  notice  to  the 
contrary  posted  in  place  of  business  and  filed  with  the 
industrial  board.  As  to  all  other  employers,  an  affirmative 
election  to  accept  the  act  must  be  made  by  notice  of  such 
election  filed  with  the  industrial  board.  All  employees  of 
employers  who  have  accepted  the  act  are  presumed  to  have 
made  a  similar  election,  unless  within  30  days  after  em- 
ployment or  acceptance  by  employer  such  employee  files 
notice  of  nonacceptance  with  the  industrial  board,  which  in 
turn  notifies  the  employer  of  his  employee's  nonacceptance. 

Iowa. — Acceptance  of  the  act  is  conclusively  presumed  on  the  part  of 
employers  in  the  absence  of  a  notice  posted  in  a  conspicuous 
place  and  filed  with  the  industrial  commissioner.  Employees 
of  such  employers  are  presumed  to  have  accepted  in  the 
absence  of  notice  served  upon  employer  and  industrial 
commissioner. 

Kansas. — Election  by  employer  to  accept  presumed  in  absence  of 
notice  thereof  posted  on  the  premises  of  the  employer  and 
filed  with  the  secretary  of  state.  Every  employee  of  an 
employer  who  has  not  rejected  the  act  is  presumed  to  have 
accepted  it  unless  he  files  with  the  secretary  of  state  before 
injury  a  written  declaration  of  the  intent  not  to  accept. 

Maryland. — By  contract  in  writing  between  employer  and  employee. 

Massachusetts. — On  part  of  employer,  by  becoming  a  subscriber 
either  to  trie  Employees'  Mutual  Insurance  Association 
created  by  the  act  or  insuring  in  an  authorized  liability 
insurance  company,  and  giving  written  or  printed  notice  to 
employees  of  such  fact,  and  filing  duplicate  with  the  in- 
dustrial board.  The  employee  of  an  employer  who  has 

63 


64  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

accepted  the  act  is  presumed  to  have  accepted  it  unless 
written  notice  to  the  contrary  has  been  given  by  him  to 
the  employer  either  (1)  at  the  time  of  hiring  or  (2)  within 
30  days  after  the  employer's  acceptance,  if  such  acceptance 
be  subsequent  to  date  of  hiring. 

Michigan.— On  the  part  of  employers,  by  filing  with  the  industrial 
accident  board  written  acceptance,  stating  method  pro- 
posed for  payment  of  compensation;  which,  however,  does 
not  become  effective  until  approved  by  that  board.  Must, 
within  10  days  after  approval,  post  notice  of  acceptance  of 
act .  Acceptance  binding  for  one  year  and  for  each  successive 
year,  but  employer  may  withdraw  such  acceptance  as  of 
the  expiration  of  any  yeai  by  filing  notice  with  board  at 
least  30  days  prior  to  expiration  of  such  year.  Employee 
must  give  employer  notice  in  writing  of  election  not  to  be 
subject  to  provisions  of  act  within  30  days  after  acceptance 
by  employer,  or,  where  he  enters  employment  after  accept- 
ance by  the  employer,  he  must  give  notice  in  writing  at  that 
time  that  he  elects  not  to  be  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the 
act.  Employee  may  subsequently  waive  such  notice  of  non- 
acceptance  by  a  statement  in  writing,  which  takes  effect 
five  days  after  it  is  submitted  to  the  employer. 

Minnesota. — On  part  of  employers:  Election  to  come  under  compen- 
sation features  of  the  act  is  presumed  in  the  absence  of 
affirmative  election  to  the  contrary,  by  written  notice  posted 
in  place  of  business  and  duplicate  thereof  filed  with  labor 
commissioner. 

On  part  of  employees:  Election  to  accept  compensation 
under  the  provisions  of  the  act  is  presumed  in  the  absence 
of  affirmative  election  to  the  contrary,  by  written  notice  to 
employer  and  duplicate,  with  proof  of  service,  filed  with 
labor  commissioner. 

Nebraska. — Employ ei's  acceptance  of  act  presumed  unless  otherwise 
expressly  stated  in  the  contract  of  employment,  or  unless 
notice  to  the  contrary  be  posted  in  the  place  of  business  and 
filed  with  the  insurance  commissioner.  Employees  of  one 
accepting  the  act  presumed  to  accept  unless  notice  ot  rejec- 
tion is  served  upon  employer  and  filed  with  insurance  com- 
missioner. 

Nevada. — Every  employer  covered  by  the  act  is  conclusively  pre- 
sumed to  have  elected  the  compensation  provisions  of  the 
act,  in  the  absence  of  affirmative  election  to  the  contrary, 
by  written  notice  posted  in  the  place  of  business  and  filed 
with  the  commission. 

All  employees  affected  by  the  act  are  conclusively  pre- 
sumed to  have  elected  to  take  compensation  in  accordance 
with  the  terms  of  the  act,  in  the  absence  of  written  notice 
served  upon  the  employer  and  file;!  with  the  commission. 

New  Hampshire. — By  employer  filing  notice  with  commissioner  of 
labor  and  either  filing  bond  for  payment  of  compensation 
or  receiving  certificate  from  commission  of  labor  as  to  his 
financial  responsibility.  Election  by  employee  is  not  made 
until  after  injury  and  then  by  his  election  to  accept  com- 
pensation in  lieu  of  right  of  action  for  damages  as  it  existed 
prior  to  the  act. 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  65 

New  Jersey. — Employer's  election  presumed  in  absence  of  written 
notice  to  employee  or  expressed  in  a  provision  in  the  con- 
tract in  hiring.  Employee's  acceptance,  where  employer 
has  accepted  the  act,  is  presumed  in  absence  of  written 
notice  to  the  employer  or  stipulation  in  contract  of  hiring  to 
the  contrary. 

Oregon. — Employer's  acceptance  presumed  in  the  absence  of  a  written 
notice  to  the  contrary  filed  with  State  industrial  accident 
commission.  Acceptance  by  employee  of  an  employer  who 
has  not  rejected  the  act,  presumed  unless  notice  to  the  con- 
trary is  given  the  employer  at  the  time  of  hiring  or  within 
15  days  after  recall  by  employer  of  his  own  nonacceptance. 

Rhode  Island. — On  the  part  of  the  employer  by  filing  with  the  com- 
missioner of  industrial  statistics  a  written  acceptance  of 
the  provisions  of  the  act,  and  by  giving  reasonable  notice 
to  his  workmen  by  posting  copies  of  such  statement  in  con- 
spicuous places  about  the  places  where  the  workmen  are 
employed.  Acceptance  binding  for  one  year  and  sucessive 
years,  subject  to  cancellation  as  of  expiration,  of  any  year 
upon  60  days'  notice  as  provided  in  case  of  acceptance. 

An  employee  of  an  employer  who  has  elected  to  accept 
the  act  is  bound  by  the  same  unless  he  gives  notice  to  the 
employer  and  files  a  copy  with  the  commissioner  of  industrial 
statistics,  which  acceptance  can  be  revoked  by  the  employee 
by]  filing  with  the  commissioner  a  notice,  at  least  60  days 
prior  to  the  expiration  of  the  first  or  any  succeeding  year 
and  giving  notice  of  the  same  to  his  employer. 

Minors  shall  be  deemed  sui  juris  for  the  purpose  of  the 
act;  but  if  a  minor  has  a  parent  or  guardian,  such  parent 
or  guardian  may  give  notice.  In  the  absence  of  notice 
the  minor  employee  is  bound  by  the  act. 

Texas. — By  the  employer  by  becoming  a  subscriber  to  the  Texas 
Employees  Insurance  Association  or  insuring  his  employees 
under  the  compensation  act  in  some  stock  company  author- 
ized to  do  business  in  the  State.  The  employer's  election  is 
binding  upon  all  his  employees. 

Washington. — Any  employer  and  his  employees  engaged  in  works  not 
specified  as  extra  hazardous  may,  by  their  joint  election,  filed 
with  the  department,  accept  the  provisions  of  this  act, 
otherwise  the  act  is  compulsory. 

West  Virginia. — By  the  employer's  electing  to  pay  premiums  into 
the  State  workmen's  compensation  fund  and  posting  notices 
in  conspicuous  places  about  his  place  of  business.  Em- 
ployees remaining  in  their  employment  after  such  notice 
are  bound  by  it. 

Wisconsin. — Every  employer  with  more  than  four  employees  is  pre- 
sumed to  have  accepted  the  act  unless  he  files  with  the 
industrial  commission  a  statement  to  the  contrary.  Other 
employers  must  make  an  affirmative  election  and  file  a 
statement  of  same  with  the  industrial  commission.  Em- 
ployees of  an  employer  subject  to  the  compensation  pro- 
visions of  the  act  are  bound  by  same  unless  they  serve 
notice  of  rejection  to  employer,  either  (1)  at  time  of  hiring, 
or  (2)  within  30  days  after  the  employer's  acceptance,  if 
such  acceptance  be  subsequent  to  date  of  hiring. 
30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2 5 


66  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 


EMPLOYMENTS    COVERED. 


Arizona. — The  operation  of  steam  railroads,  electrical  railroads, 
street  railroads,  by  locomotives,  engines,  trains,  motors,  or 
cars  of  any  kind  propelled  by  steam,  electricity,  cable,  or 
other  mechanical  power,  including  the  construction,  use,  or 
repair  of  machinery,  plant,  tracks,  switches,  bridges,  road- 
beds, upon,  over,  and  by  which  such  railway  business  is 
operated.  All  work  when  making,  using,  or  ^necessitating 
dangerous  proximity  to  gunpowder,  blasting  powder,  dyna- 
mite, compressed  air,  or  any  other  explosives.  The  erection 
or  demolition  of  any  bridge,  building,  or  structure  in  which 
there  is,  or  in  which  the  plans  and  specifications  require 
iron  or  steel  framework.  The  operation  of  all  elevators, 
elevating  machinery,  or  derricks,  or  hoisting  apparatus  used 
within  or  on  the  outside  of  any  bridge,  building,  or  other 
structure  for  conveying  materials  in  connection  with  the 
erection  or  demolition  of  such  bridge,  building,  or  structure. 
All  work  on  ladders  or  scaffolds  of  any  kind  elevated  20  feet 
or  more  above  the  ground  or  floor  beneath  in  the  erection, 
construction,  repair,  painting,  or  alteration  of  any  building, 
bridge,  structure,  or  other  work  in  which  the  same  are  used. 
All  work  of  construction,  operation,  or  repair  where  wires, 
cables,  switchboards,  or  other  apparatus  or  machinery  are 
in  use  charged  with  electrical  current.  All  work  in  the 
construction,  alteration,  or  repair  of  pole  lines  for  telegraph, 
telephone,  or  other  purposes.  All.  work  in  mines  and  all 
work  in  quarries.  All  work  in  the  construction  and  repair 
of  tunnels,  subways,  and  viaducts.  All  work  in  mills,  shops, 
works,  yards,  plants,  and  factories  where  steam,  electricity, 
or  any  other  mechanical  power  is  used  to  operate  machinery 
and  appliances  in  and  about  such  premises. 

California. — All  employments  in  the  ordinary  course  of  the  trade, 
business,  profession,  or  occupation  of  the  employer,  except 
farm  labor,  domestic  service,  and  casual  employments,  and 
employments  in  interstate  commerce  not  subject  to  legis- 
lative power  of  State. 

Connecticut. — All  employments  by  an  employer  having  regularly 
five  or  more  employees,  except  casual  employees  and  out- 
workers. 

Illinois. — All  employments  by  the  State  or  any  of  its  governmental 
agencies,  or  by  any  person,  firm,  or  corporation,  including 
public  service,  religious,  or  charitable  corporations  or  asso- 
ciations, who  has  any  person  in  service  or  under  any  contract 
for  hire,  but  excluding  casual  employments  and  those  not  in 
the  usual  course  of  the  trade,  business,  profession,  or  occu- 
pation of  the  employer. 

Iowa. — All  employments,  except  farm  laborers  or  other  laborers 
engaged  in  agricultural  pursuits,  household  or  domestic 
servants,  or  casual  employees. 

Kansas. — Only  employments  in  the  course  of  the  employer's  trade  or 
business  on,  in,  or  about  a  railway,  factory,  mine,  or  quarry; 
electric,  building,  or  engineering  work;  laundry,  natural-gas 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  67 

plant,  county  and  municipal  work,  and  all  employments 
wherein  a  process  requiring  the  use  of  any  dangerous 
explosive  or  inflammable  materials  is  carried  on  which  is 
conducted  for  the  purpose  of  business,  trade,  or  gain;  each 
of  which  employments  is  hereby  determined  to  be  especially 
dangerous  in  which,  from  the  nature,  conditions,  or  means 
of  prosecution  of  the  work  therein,  extraordinary  risk  to  the 
life  and  limb  of  the  workman  engaged  therein  are  inherent, 
necessary,  or  substantially  unavoidable,  and  as  to  each  of 
which  employments  it  is  deemed  necessary  to  establish  a  new 
system  of  compensation  for  injuries  to  workmen.  This  act 
shall  not  apply  in  any  case  where  the  accident  occurred 
before  this  act  takes  effect,  and  all  rights  which  have 
accrued  by  reason  of  any  such  accident,  at  the  time  of  the 
publication  of  this  act,  shall  be  saved  the  remedies  now  ex- 
isting therefor,  and  the  court  shall  have  the  same  power  as  to 
them  as  if  this  act  had  not  been  enacted.  Agricultural 
pursuits  and  employments  incident  thereto  are'  hereby 
declared  to  be  nonhazardous  and  exempt  from  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act. 

It  is  hereby  determined  that  the  necessity  for  this  law 
and  the  reason  for  its  enactment,  exist  only  with  regard  to 
employers  who  employ  a  considerable  number  of  persons. 
This  act,  therefore,  shall  only  apply  to  employers  by  whom 
five  or  more  workmen  have  been  (employed)  continuously 
for  more  than  one  month  at  the  time  of  the  accident ;  pro- 
vided, however,  that  employers  having  less  than  five  work- 
men may  elect  to  come- within  the  provisions  of  this  act,  in 
which  case  his  employees  shall  be  included  herein,  as  herein- 
after provided;  and  provided  further,  that  this  act  shall 
apply  to  mines  without  regard  to  number  of  workmen 
employed. 

Maryland. — All  employments. 

Massachusetts. — All,  except  casual  employments  and  those  not  in  the 
usual  course  of  trade,  business,  profession,  or  occupation  of 
the  employer,  and  excepting  employments  such  as  masters 
or  seamen  of  vessels  engaged  in  interstate  or  foreign  com- 
merce. The  statute  expressly  provides  that  the  provisions 
of  section  1,  removing  defenses,  shall  not  apply  to  actions  to 
recover  damages  for  personal  injuries  sustained  by  domestic 
servants  and  farm  laborers.  However,  the  parties  involved 
in  these  employments  may  elect  to  accept  the  compensation 
provisions  of  the  act. 

Michigan. — All  employments,  except  household,  domestic  servants 
and  farm  laborers. 

Minnesota. — All  employments  except  farm  labor,  domestic  service, 
casual  employment,  employment  not  in  the  usual  course  of 
business  of  the  employer,  and  interstate  employment  on 
railroads. 

Nebraska. — All  employments  in  which  five  or  more  persons  are  en- 
gaged in  employer's  regular  business  excepting  farm  labor, 
domestic  service,  outworking,  casual  employment,  and  inter- 
state employment  on  railroads.  In  excepted  employments 


68  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

the  employer  and  employee  may  jointly  agree  to  accept  the 
act. 

Nevada. — All  employers  who  employ  two  or  more  persons  in  the  same 
employment  in  the  usual  and  ordinary  transaction  of  busi- 
ness except  employers  of  domestic  servants  and  farm  laborers. 

New  Hampshire.  — (a)  The  operation  on  steam  or  electric  railroads  of 
locomotives,  engines,  trains,  or  cars,  or  the  construction, 
alteration,  maintenance,  or  repair  of  steam  railroad  tracks 
or  roadbeds  over  which  such  locomotives,  engines,  trains, 
or  cars  are,  or  are  to  be,  operated.  (6)  Work  in  any  shop, 
mill,  factory,  or  other  place  on,  in  connection  with,  or  in 
proximity  to  any  hoisting  apparatus,  or  any  machinery  pro- 
pelled or  operated  by  steam  or  other  mechanical  power  in 
which  shop,  mill,  factory,  or  other  place  five  or  more  persons 
are  engaged  in  manual  or  mechanical  labor,  (c)  The  con- 
struction, operation,  alteration,  or  repair  of  wires  or  lines  of 
wires,  cables,  switchboards,  or  apparatus  charged  with  elec- 
•  trie  currents,  (d)  All  work  necessitating  dangerous  prox- 
imity to  gunpowder,  blasting  powder,  dynamite,  or  any  other 
explosives,  where  the  same  are  used  as  instrumentalities  of 
the  industry,  or  to  any  steam  boiler  owned  or  operated  by 
the  employer;  provided,  injury  is  occasioned  by  the  explo- 
sion of  any  sucn  boiler  or  explosive,  (e)  Work  in  or  about 
any  quarry,  mine,  or  foundry.  As  to  each  of  said  employ- 
ments it  is  deemed  necessary  to  establish  a  new  system  of 
compensation  for  accidents  to  workmen. 

New  Jersey. — Any  employment  by  any  person,  partnership,  or  cor- 
poration, including  State,  county,  municipality,  or  any  other 
governing  body  except  casual  employments. 

New  York. — Group  1.  The  operation,  including  construction  and 
repair  of  railways  operated  by  steam,  electric,  or  other 
motive  power,  street  railways,  and  incline  railways,  but  not 
their  construction  when  constructed  by  any  person  other 
than  the  company  which  owns  or  operates  the  railway,  in- 
cluding work  of  express,  sleeping,  parlor,  and  dining  car 
employees  on  railway  trains. 

Group  2.  Construction  and  operation  of  railways  not  in- 
cluded in  group  1. 

Group  3.  The  operation,  including  construction  and  repair, 
of  car  shops,  machine  shops,  steam  and  power  plants,  and 
other  works  for  the  purposes  of  any  such  railway,  or  used 
or  to  be  used  in  connection  with  it  when  operated,  con- 
structed, or  repaired  by  the  company  which  owns  or  operates 
the  railway. 

Group  4.  The  operation,  including  construction  and  repair, 
of  car  shops,  machine  shops,  steam  and  power  plants,  not 
included  in  group  3. 

Group  5.  The  operation,  including  construction  and  repair, 
of  telephone  lines  and  wires  for  the  purposes  of  the  business 
of  a  telephone  company,  or  used  or  to  be  used  in  connection 
with  its  business,  when  constructed  or  operated  by  the 
company. 

Group  6.  The  operation,  including  construction  and  repair, 
of  telegraph  lines  and  wires  for  the  purposes  of  the  business 


DIGEST  OF  STATE  LAWS.  69 

of  a  telegraph  company,  or  used  or  to  be  used  in  connection 
with  its  business,  when  constructed  or  operated  by  the 
company. 

Group  7.  Construction  of  telegraph  and  telephone  lines 
not  included  in  groups  5  and  6. 

Group  8.  The  operation,  within  or  without  the  State, 
including  repair,  of  vessels  other  than  vessels  of  other  States 
or  countries  used  in  interstate  or  foreign  commerce,  when 
operated  or  repaired  by  the  company. 

Group  9.  Shipbuilding,  including  construction  and  repair 
in  a  shipyard  or  elsewhere,  not  included  in  group  8. 

Group  10.  Longshore  work,  including  the  loading  or  un- 
loading of  cargoes  or  parts  of  cargoes  of  grain,  coal,  ore, 
freight,  general  merchandise,  lumber,  or  other  products  or 
materials,  or  moving  or  handling  the  same  o  any  dock, 
platform,  or  place,  or  in  any  warehouse  or  other  place  of 
storage. 

Group  11.  Dredging,  subaqueous  or  caisson  construction, 
and  pile  driving. 

Group  12.  Construction,  installation,  or  operation  of  elec- 
tric light  and  electric  power  lines,  dynamos,  or  appliances, 
and  power  transmission  lines. 

Group  13.  Paving;  sewer  and  subway  construction,  work 
under  compressed  air,  excavation,  tunneling  and  shaft  sink- 
ing, well  digging,  laying  and  repair  of  underground  pipes, 
cables,  and  wires,  not  included  in  other  groups. 

Group  14.  Lumbering;  logging,  river  driving,  rafting, 
booming,  sawmills,  shingle  mills,  lath  mills,  manufacture  of 
veneer  and  of  excelsior;  manufacture  of  staves,  spokes,  or 
headings. 

Group  15.  Pulp  and  paper  mills. 

Group  16.  Manufacture  of  furniture,  interior  woodwork, 
organs,  pianos,  piano  actions,  canoes,  small  boats,  coffins, 
wicker  and  rattan  ware;  upholstering;  manufacture  of  mat- 
tresses or  bed  springs. 

Group  17.  Planing  mills,  sash  and  door  factories,  manu- 
facture of  wooden  and  corrugated  paper  boxes,  cheese  boxes, 
moldings,  window  and  door  screens,  window  shades,  carpet 
sweepers,  wooden  toys,  articles  and  wares,  or  baskets. 

Group  18.  Mining;  reduction  of  ores  and  smelting  prepa- 
ration of  metals  or  minerals. 

Group  19.  Quarries;  sand,  shale,  clay,  or  gravel  pits,  lime- 
kilns; manufacture  of  brick,  tile,  terra  cotta,  fireproofing,  or 
paving  blocks,  manufacture  of  calcium  carbide,  cement, 
asphalt,  or  paving  material. 

Group  20.  Manufacture  of  glass,  glass  products,  glassware, 
porcelain,  or  pottery. 

Group  21.  Iron,  steel,  or  metal  foundries;  rolling  mills; 
manufacture  of  castings,  forgings,  heavy  engines,  locomo- 
tives, machinery,  safes,  anchors,  cables,  rails,  shafting,  wires, 
tubing,  pipes,  sheet  metal,  boilers,  furnaces,  stoves,  struc- 
tural steel,  iron,  or  metal. 

Group  22.  Operation  and  repair  of  stationary  engines  and 
boilers,  not  included  in  other  groups. 


70  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Group  23.  Manufacture  of  small  castings  or  forgings, 
metal  wares,  instruments,  utensils,  and  articles,  hardware, 
nails,  wire  goods,  screens,  bolts,  metal  beds,  sanitary,  water, 
gas,  or  electric  fixtures,  light  machines,  typewriters,  cash 
registers,  adding  machines,  carriage  mountings,  bicycles, 
metal  toys,  tools,  cutlery,  instruments,  photographic  cam- 
eras and  supplies,  sheet-metal  products,  buttons. 

Group  24.  Manufacture  of  agricultural  implements, 
thrashing  machines,  traction  engines,  wagons,  carriages, 
sleighs,  vehicles,  automobiles,  motor  trucks,  toy  wagons, 
sleighs,  or  baby  carriages. 

Group  25.  Manufacture  of  explosives  and  dangerous 
chemicals,  corrosive  acids  or  salts,  ammonia,  gasoline,  petro- 
leum, petroleum  products,  celluloid,  gas,  charcoal,  artificial 
ice,  gun  powder,  or  ammunition. 

Group  26.  Manufacture  of  paint,  color,  varnish,  oil, 
japans,  turpentine,  printing  ink,  printers'  rollers,  tar, 
tarred,  pitched,  or  asphalted  paper. 

Group  27.  Distilleries,  breweries;  manufacture  of  spirit- 
uous or  malt  liquors,  alcohol,  wine,  mineral  water,  or  soda 
waters. 

Group  28.  Manufacture  of  drugs  and  chemicals,  not  spec- 
ified in  group  25,  medicines,  dyes,  extracts,  pharmaceutical 
or  toilet  preparations,  soaps,  candles,  perfumes,  noncorro- 
sive  acids  or  chemical  preparations,  fertilizers,  including 
garbage-disposal  plants;  shoe  blacking  or  polish. 

Group  29.  Milling;  manufacture  of  cereals  or  cattle  foods, 
warehousing;  storage;  operation  of  grain  elevators. 

Group  30.  Packing  houses,  abattoirs,  manufacture  or 
preparation  of  meats  or  meat  products  or  glue. 

Group  31.  Tanneries. 

Group  32.  Manufacture  of  leather  goods  and  products, 
belting,  saddlery,  harness,  trunks,  valises,  boots,  shoes, 
gloves,  umbrellas,  rubber  goods,  rubber  shoes,  tubing,  tires, 
or  hose. 

Group  33.  Canning  or  preparation  of  fruit,  vegetables, 
fish  or  foodstuffs;  pickle  factories  and  sugar  refineries. 

Group  34.  Bakeries,  including  manufacture  of  crackers 
and  biscuits,  manufacture  of  confectionery,  spices,  or  condi- 
ments. 

Group  35.  Manufacture  of  tobacco,  cigars,  cigarettes,  or 
tobacco  products. 

Group  36.  Manufacture  of  cordage,  ropes,  fiber,  brooms 
or  brushes;  manilla  or  hemp  products. 

Group  37.  Flak  mills;  manufacture  of  textiles  or  fabrics, 
spinning,  weaving,  and  knitting  manufactories;  manufac- 
ture of  yarn,  thread,  hosiery,  cloth,  blankets,  carpets,  can- 
vas, bags,  shoddy,  or  felt. 

Group  38.  Manufacture  of  men's  or  women's  clothing, 
white  wear  shirts,  collars,  corsets,  hats,  caps,  furs,  or  robes. 

Group  39.  Power  laundries ;  dyeing,  cleaning,  or  bleaching. 

Group  40.  Printing,  photo-engraving,  stereotyping,  elec- 
tro typing,  lithographing,  embossing;  manufacture  of  sta- 
tionery, paper,  cardboard  boxes,  bags,  or  wall  paper;  and 
book  binding. 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  71 

Group  41.  The  operation,  otherwise  than  on  tracks,  on 
streets,  highways,  or  elsewhere  of  cars,  trucks,  wagons,  or 
other  vehicles,  and  rollers  and  engines,  propelled  by  steam, 
gas,  gasoline,  electric,  mechanical,  or  other  power  or  drawn 
by  horses  or  mules. 

Group  42.  Stone  cutting  or  dressing;  marble  works;  man- 
ufacture of  artificial  stone;  steel  building  and  bridge  con- 
struction; installation  of  elevators,  fire  escapes,  boilers, 
engines  or  heavy  machinery;  bricklaying,  tile  laying,  mason 
work,  stone  setting,  concrete  w^ork,  plastering;  and  manu- 
facture of  concrete  blocks;  structural  carpentry;  painting, 
decorating,  or  renovating;  sheet-metal  work;  roofing;  con- 
struction, repair,  and  demolition  of  buildings  and  bridges; 
plumbing,  sanitary,  or  heating  engineering;  installation  and 
covering  of  pipes  or  boilers. 

Ohio. — Every  person,  firm,  and  corporation,  employing  five  or  more 
workmen  regularly  in  the  same  business. 

Oregon. — The  hazardous  occupations  to  which  the  act  is  'applicable 
are:  Factories,  mills,  and  workshops  where  machinery  is 
used;  printing,  electro  typing,  photo-engraving,  .and  stero- 
typing  plants  where  machinery  is  used;  factories,  glass  fur- 
naces, mines,  wells,  gas  works,  waterworks,  reduction  works, 
derricks,  elevators,  wharves,  docks,  dredges,  smelters, 
powder  works,  laundries  operated  by  power,  quarries,  en- 
gineering works;  logging,  lumbering,  and  shipbuilding;  log- 
ging, street,  and  interurban  railroads  not  engaged  in  inter- 
state commerce;  buildings  being  constructed,  ^  repaired, 
moved,  or  demolished;  telegraph,  telephone,  electric  light  or 
power  plants  or  lines;  steam  heating  or  power  plants;  steam- 
boats, docks,  and  ferries. 

Rhode  Island. — All  employments  except  domestic  service,  agricul- 
ture, casual  employments,  and  those  not  for  the  purpose  of 
the  employer's  trade  or  business.  The  provision  of  the  act 
removing  defenses  does  not  apply  to  employers  who  em- 
ploy five  or  less  operators  regularly  in  the  same  business, 
though  such  employers  may  elect  to  become  subject  to  the 
provisions  of  the  act.  Employees  whose  yearly  wages  ex- 
ceed $1,800  are  not  covered. 

Texas. — All  employments  except  domestic  service,  farm  labor,  em- 
ployment by  a  railway,  employment  in  a  cotton  gin,  em- 
ployment by  an  employer  of  not  more  than  five  employees, 
casual  employments  and  those  not  in  the  usual  course  of  the 
trade,  business,  profession,  or  occupation  of  the  employer. 
Washington. — Factories,  mills,  and  workshops  where  machinery  is 
used;  printing,  electro  typing,  photo-engraving,  and  stereo- 
typing plants  where  machinery  is  used;  foundries,  blast  fur- 
naces, mines,  wells,  gas  works,  waterworks,  reduction  works, 
breweries,  elevators,  wharves,  docks,  dredges,  smelters, 
powder  works;  laundries  operated  by  power;  quarries;  en- 
gineering works;  logging,  lumbering,  and  shipbuilding  oper- 
tions;  logging,  street,  and  interurban  railroads;  buildings 
being  constructed,  repaired,  moved,  or  demolished ;  telegraph, 
telephone,  electric  light  or  power  plants  or  lines;  steam  heat- 
ing or  power  plants,  steamboats,  tugs,  ferries,  and  railroads. 


72  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

West  Virginia. — All  persons,  firms,  and  corporations  regularly  em- 
ploying other  persons  for  profit.  All  persons  except  casual 
employees  in  the  service  of  such  employers,  and  employed 
by  them  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  the  industries  in 
which  they  are  engaged,  except  employers  of  employees  in 
domestic  or  agricultural  service,  and  employees  of  any  em- 
ployer who  are  employed  wholly  without  the  State,  and 
members  of  a  firm  of  employers  or  officers  of  a  corporation 
employer,  including  managers,  superintendents,  and  as- 
sistant managers  and  assistant  superintendents.  All  em- 
ployments conducted  for  employer's  profit,  excepting  farm 
labor,  domestic  service,  casual  employment,  and  employ- 
ment wholly  without  the  State. 

Wisconsin. — All  employments  except  casual  employments  and  those 
not  in  the  usual  course  of  trade  or  business  of  the  employer. 

INJURIES    COVERED. 

Arizona. — Personal  injuries,  by  accident,  arising  out  of  and  in  the 
course  of  labor,  service,  or  employment,  caused  in  whole  or 
in  part  or  contributed  to  by  a  necessary  risk  or  danger  of 
such  employment,  or  a  necessary  risk  or  danger  inherent 
in  the  nature  thereof,  or  by  failure  of  the  employer  of  any 
of  his  officers,  agents,  or  employees  to  comply  with  any  law. 

California. — Personal  injuries,  sustained  by  accident,  arising  out  of 
and  in  the  course  of  employment,  unless  due  to  intoxication 
or  willful  misconduct. 

Connecticut. — Injuries  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employ- 
ment, except  when  due  to  willful  and  serious  misconduct  or 
intoxication. 

Illinois. — Accidental  injuries,  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of 
employment. 

Iowa. — Personal  injuries,  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  employ- 
ment, unless  due  to  intoxication  or  to  willful  intention  to 
inj  ure  self  or  another. 

Kansas. — Personal  injuries,  by  accident,  arising  out  of  and  in  the 
course  of  employment,  unless  due  to  deliberate  intention 
to  cause  such  injury  or  to  willful  failure  to  use  a  guard  or 
protection  against  accident,  or  to  deliberate  breach  of 
safety  law,  or  to  intoxication. 

Maryland. — Personal  injuries,  by  accident,  arising  out  of  and  in  the 
course  of  employment,  unless  due  to  intoxication  or  willful 
intention  to  produce  such  injury. 

Massachusetts. — Personal  injuries  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course 
of  employment,  unless  due  to  serious  and  willful  misconduct. 

Michigan. — Personal  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  em- 
ployment, except  where  employee  is  injured  by  reason  of  his 
intentional  and  willful  misconduct. 

Minnesota. — Personal  injuries,  by  accident,  arising  out  of  and  in  the 
course  of  employment,  except  those  intentionally  self- 
inflicted  or  due  to  intoxication. 

Nebraska. — Personal  injuries,  by  accident,  arising  out  of  and  in  the 
course  of  employment,  unless  due  to  willful  negligence. 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  73 

Nevada. — Personal  injuries,  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  em- 
ployment, except  when  caused  by  willful  intention  of 
employee  to  injure  himself  or  another  or  where  an, injury  is 
sustained  while  the  employee  is  intoxicated. 

New  Hampshire. — Any  injury  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of 
their  employment,  except  when  caused  by  intoxication, 
violation  of  law,  or  serious  or  willful  misconduct. 

New  Jersey. — Personal  injuries,  by  accident,  arising  out  of  and  in 
the  course  of  employment,  unless  caused  by  willful  negligence 
which  consists  of  either  a  deliberate  act  or  a  deliberate 
failure  to  act,  or  reckless  indifference  to  safety  or  intoxica- 
tion. 

New  York. — Accidental  injuries,  arising  out  of  and  in  the  course  of 
employment  and  such  disease  or  infection  as  may  naturally 
and  unavoidably  result  therefrom,  except  when  injury  is 
due  to  intoxication  while  on  duty  or  to  willful  intention  to 
injure  self  or  another. 

Ohio. — Every  injury  suffered  in  the  course  of  employment  and  not 
purposely  self-inflicted. 

Oregon. —Personal  injuries,  by  accident,  arising  out  of  and  in  the 
course  of  employment,  unless  casued  by  deliberate  inten- 
tion. 

Rhode  Island. — Personal  injuries  by  accident  arising  out  of  and  in  the 
course  of  employment,  except  when  occasioned  by  willful 
intention  to  injure  self  or  another,  or  when  resulting  from 
intoxication  while  on  duty. 

Texas. — Personal  injuries  sustained  in  the  course  of  employment. 

Washington. — Personal  injuries  sustained  while  upon  the  premises 
or  at  the  plant  of  the  employer,  and  while  away  from  the 
plant  of  the  employer,  if  in  the  course  of  employment,  unless 
deliberately  self-inflicted. 

West  Virginia. — Personal  injuries  in  the  course  of  and  resulting  from 
employment  unless  self-inflicted  or  due  to  willful  mis- 
conduct or  intoxication. 

Wisconsin. — Personal  injuries,  accidentally  sustained  in  performing 
services,  growing  out  of  and  incidental  to  employment,  if 
injury  caused  by  the  accident  and  not  intentionally  self- 
inflicted. 

MEDICAL   AND    SURGICAL   AID. 

Arizona. — No  medical  and  surgical  aid,  except  that  personal  repre- 
sentative is  authorized  in  case  of  death  to  pay  out  of  the 
compensation  fund  for  reasonable  medical  attendance  and 
burial  of  the  decedent. 

California.— Employer  must  furnish  reasonable  medical,  surgical,  and 
hospital  treatment  for  a  period  not  exceeding  90  days.  If 
the  employer  neglects  or  refuses  seasonably  so  to  do,  he  will 
be  liable  for  the  reasonable  expenses  incurred  by  the  em- 
ployee in  providing  the  same. 

Connecticut. — Employer  must  furnish  reasonable  medical  and  surgical 
aid  during  the  30  days  immediately  following  the  injury, 
but  the  injured  employee  may,  at  his  option,  refuse  suet  aid 


74  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

and  provide  the  same  at  his  own  expense ;  or  if  the  employer 
fails  to  provide  such  aid  promptly,  the  injured  employee 
may  do  so  at  the  expense  of  the  employer.  If  injured 
employee  refuses  to  accept  or  fails  to  provide  such  medical 
and  surgical  aid,  all  rights  of  compensation  are  suspended 
during  such  refusal  and  failure. 

Illinois. — The  employer  shall  provide  necessary  first  aid,  medical, 
surgical,  and  hospital  services  for  a  period  not  longer  than 
eight  weeks,  not  to  exceed,  however,  more  than  $200.  The 
employee  may  elect  to  secure  his  own  physician,  surgical,  or 
hospital  services  at  his  own  expense. 

Iowa. — At  any  time  during  the  first  two  weeks  of  incapacity  an 
employer  that  is  requested  by  the  workman,  or  anyone  for 
him,  or  if  so  ordered  by  the  Iowa  industrial  commission, 
shall  furnish  reasonable  surgical,  medical,  and  hospital  serv- 
ices, the  amount  not  to  exceed  $100. 

Kansas. — No  medical  and  surgical  aid,  except  that  in  case  of  death 
without  dependents  the  employer  must  pay  reasonable 
expense  for  medical  attendance  and  burial  services,  not  to 
exceed  in  value  $100. 

Maryland. — No  medical  and  surgical  aid,  except  that  in  case  of  death 
without  dependents  the  employer  must  pay  medical  and 
burial  expenses  not  less  than  $75  nor  more  than  $100. 

Massachusetts. — Reasonable  medical  and  hospital  services,  and  medi- 
cines, when  needed,  during  the  first  two  weeks  after  injury. 

Michigan. — During  three  weoks  after  injury  employer  shall  furnish 
or  cause  to  be  furnished  reasonable  medical  and  hospital 
services  and  medcines. 

Minnesota. — Employer  must  furnish  such  medical  and  surgical  treat- 
ment and  supplies,  as  may  reasonably  be  required  during  a 
maximum  period  of  90  days.  If  employer  is  unable  or  re- 
fuses to  furnish  such  services  he  will  be  liable  up  to  a  maxi- 
mum of  $100.  If  necessary,  court  may  require  employer 
to  furnish  additional  service  after  the  90  days  period,  with  a 
total  maximum  of  $200. 

Nebraska. — Employer  must  furnish  reasonable  medical  aid  during  the 
first  21  days  after  disability  but  not  to  exceed  the  amount 
of  $200.  Employer  relieved  from  paying  compensation  for 
any  aggravation  of  injury  due  to  employee's  refusal  to  ac- 
cept medical  aid. 

Nevada. — No  medical  and  surgical  aid. 

New  Hampshire. — No  medical  and  surgical  aid  except  that  in  case  of 
death  without  dependents,  employer  must  pay  for  medical 
services  and  expenses  of  burial,  the  amount  not  to  exceed 
$100. 

New  Jersey. — During  the  first  two  weeks  after  the  injury  the  em- 
ployer shall  furnish  reasonable  medical  and  hospital  services 
and  medicines,  as  and  when  needed,  not  to  exceed  $50  in 
value,  unless  the  employee  refuses  to  allow  them  to  be  fur- 
nished by  the  employer. 

New  York. — The  employer  shall  promptly  provide  for  the  injured 
employee  such  medical,  surgical,  or  other  attendance,  or 
nurse,  hospital  services,  medicines,  crutches,  and  apparatus 
as  may  be  required,  or  be  requested  by  the  employee  within 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  75 

60  days  after  the  injury.  If  the  employer  fails  to  provide 
the  same,  the  injured  employee  may  do  so  at  the  expense  of 
the  employer.  All  fees  and  other  charges  for  such  treat- 
ments and.  services  shall  be  subject  to  regulation  by  the 
commission. 

Oliio. — The  State  liability  board  of  awards  shall  disburse  and  pay 
from  the  State  insurance  fund  such  amounts  for  medical, 
nurse,  and  hospital  services  and  medicines  as  it  may  deem 
proper,  not  to  exceed  the  sum  of  $200.  The  board  shall 
have  full  power  to  adopt  rules  and  regulations  with  respect 
to  furnishing  medical,  nurse,  and  hospital  services  and  medi- 
cines to  injured  employees  entitled  thereto. 

Oregon. — The  commission  shall  have  authority  to  provide  under  uni- 
form rules  and  regulations,  first  aid  to  workmen  who  are 
entitled  to  benefits  hereunder,  together  with  medical  and 
surgical  attendance  and  hospital  accommodations,  the 
amount  not  to  exceed  $250  in  any  one  case. 

RJwde  Island. — During  the  first  two  weeks  of  injury  employer  shall 
furnish  reasonable  medical  and  hospital  services  and  medi- 
cines when  they  are  needed;  amount  of  the  charges  for  such 
services  to  be  fixed,  in  case  of  failure  to  agree,  by  the  superior 
court. 

Texas. — During  the  first  week  of  injury  the  association  shall  furnish 
reasonable  medical  and  surgical  aid  when  needed,  and  if  it 
does  not  furnish  these  immediately  as  and  when  needed,  it 
shall  repay  all  sums  reasonably  paid  or  incurred  for  same, 
provided  that  reasonable  notice  of  injury  be  given  to  the 
association. 

Washington. — No  medical  aid. 

West  Virginia. — The  commission  shall  pay  for  such  medical  and  hos- 
pital services  as  it  may  deem  proper,  with  a  maximum  of 
$150,  except  where  injured  employee  is  entitled  to  the  same 
through  some  contract  connected  with  his  employment  or 
otherwise. 

Wisconsin.— Employer  must  furnish  such  medical  aid,  including 
crutches  and  apparatus,  as  required  at  time  of  injury  and 
thereafter  during  a  period  of  not  to  exceed  90  days ;  in  case 
of  employer's  neglect  or  refusal  he  shall  be  liable  for  rea- 
sonable expense  therefor  incurred  by  employee. 

WAITING   PERIOD. 

Arizona. — First  two  weeks  after  accident;  but  if  accident  results  in 
total  incapacity  for  more  than  two  weeks,  then  the  com- 
pensation commences  from  the  date  of  the  accident. 

California. — First  two  weeks. 

Connecticut. — First  two  weeks. 

Illinois. — First  six  days  except  where  Incapacity  is  permanent,  in 
which  case  there  is  no  waiting  period. 

Iowa. — First  two  weeks. 

Kansas. — First  two  weeks. 

Maryland. — First  week. 

Massachusetts. — First  two  weeks. 


76  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Michigan. — First  two  weeks.     If  disability  continues  for  eight  weeks 

or  longer,  compensation  then  payable  from  date  of  injury. 
Minnesota. — First  two  weeks. 
Nebraska. — First   two  weeks.     If  disability  continues   eight  weeks 

or  longer,  compensation  then  payable  from  date  of  injury. 
Nevada. — First  two  weeks.     If  disability  continues  for  eight  weeks 

or  longer,  compensation  then  payable  from  date  of  injury. 
New  Hampshire. — First  two  weeks. 
New  Jersey. — First  two  weeks. 
New  York. — First  two  weeks. 
Ohio. — First  week. 
Oregon. — No  waiting  period. 
Rhode  Island. — First  two  weeks. 
Texas. — First  week. 
Washington. — No  waiting  period. 
West  Virginia. — First  week. 
Wisconsin. — First  week.     If  disability  continues  for  more  than  four 

weeks,  compensation  then  payable  from  date  of  injury. 

AMOUNT  OF  COMPENSATION — TOTAL  DISABILITY. 

Arizona. — Fifty  per  cent  of  the  workman's  average  earnings  when 
at  full  work  on  full  time,  during  the  preceding  year ;  to  con- 
tinue as  long  as  incapacity  continues,  but  in  no  case  to 
exceed  the  sum  of  $4,000. 

California. — When  disability  is  temporary  but  total,  compensation 
is  65  per  cent  of  average  weekly  earnings  during  the  period 
of  such  disability;  but  the  aggregate  indemnity  for  a  single 
injury  must  not  exceed  three  times  the  average  annual  earn- 
ings, nor  must  the  period  extend  beyond  240  weeks  from  the 
date  of  accident. 

Where  the  disability  is  total  and  permanent,  compensa- 
tion is  65  per  cent  of  the  average  weekly  earnings  for  a  period 
of  240  weeks,  and  thereafter  40  per  cent  of  such  earnings 
during  the  remainder  of  life. 

Loss  of  both  eyes  or  the  sight  thereof,  loss  of  both  hands 
or  the  use  thereof,  an  injury  resulting  in  a  practically  total 
paralvsis  or  an  injury  to  the  brain  resulting  in  incurable 
imbecility  or  insanity  are  considered  as  total  permanent 
disability. 

Connecticut. — In  case  the  injury  results  in  total  incapacity  to  perform 
work  of  any  character,  there  shall  be  paid  to  the  injured 
employee  a  weekly  compensation  equal  to  half  of  his  average 
weekly  earnings  at  the  time  of  the  injury;  but  the  compen- 
sation shall  in  no  case  be  mere  than  $10  or  less  than  $5 
weekly;  and  such  compensation  shall  not  continue  longer 
than  the  period  of  total  incapacity,  or  in  any  event  longer 
than  520  weeks.  The  following  injuries  of  any  person  shall 
be  considered  as  causing  total  incapacity  and  compensation 
shall  be  paid  accordingly:  (a)  Total  and  permanent  loss  of 
sight  in  both  eyes;  (6)  the  loss  of  both  feet  at  or  above  the 
ankle;  (c)  the  loss  of  both  hands  at  or  above  the  wrist; 
(d)  the  loss  of  one  foot  at  or  above  the  ankle  and  one  hand 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  77 

at  or  above  the  wrist;  (e)  any  injury  resulting  in  permanent 
and  complete  paralysis  of  the  legs  or  arms  or  of  one  leg  and 
one  arm;  (/)  any  injury  resulting  in  incurable  imbecility  or 
insanity. 

Illinois. — If  disability  is  temporary  but  total,  compensation  equal  to 
one-half  the  earnings,  but  not  less  than  $5  nor  more  than 
$12  per  week,  to  continue  during  disability,  but  not  after 
the  amount  of  compensation  paid  equals  four  times  the 
average  annual  earnings,  or  $3,500.  Where  disability  is 
total  and  permanent,  compensation  equal  to  50  per  cent  of 
earnings,  but  not  less  than  $5  nor  more  than  $12  per  week, 
commencing  on  the  day  after  injury  and  continuing  until  the 
amount  paid  equals  four  times  the  average  annual  earnings, 
or  $3,500,  and  thereafter  an  annual  pension  during  life  equal 
to  8  per  cent  of  the  latter  amount,  such  pension  to  be  not 
less  than  $10  per  month  and  to  be  payable  monthly. 

Iowa. — fror  injury  producing  temporary  disability,  50  per  cent  of  the 
average  weekly  wages  received  at  the  time  of  the  injury; 
subject  to  a  maximum  of  $10  per  week  and  a  minimum  of 
$5  per  week;  provided  that  if,  at  the  time  of  the  injury,  the 
employee  receives  wages  of  less  than  $5  per  week,  then  he 
shall  receive  the  full  amount  of  wages  per  week.  The  com- 
pensation shall  be  paid  during  the  period  of  such  disability, 
not,  however,  beyond  300  weeks.  For  permanent  total 
disability,  same  scale  of  compensation,  subject  to  maximum 
duration  of  400  weeks. 

Kansas. — Where  disability  is  total,  compensation  shall  be  in  peri- 
odical payments  during  disabilit}^,  equal  to  50  per  cent  aver- 
age weekly  wages,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $15  and  a  mini- 
mum of  $6  per  week,  for  not  to  exceed  eight  years. 

Maryland. — A  weekly  payment  during  the  period  of  such  disability, 
but  not  to  be  less  than  50  per  cent  of  the  average  weekly 
wages  during  the  previous  12  months.  Total  disability  shall 
be  deemed  to  be  inability  to  carry  on  any  gainful  occupa- 
tion. The  loss,  by  actual  separation  at  or  above  the  wrist 
or  ankle,  of  both  hands  or  both  feet,  or  of  one  hand  and  one 
foot,  or  the  irrevocable  loss  of  both  eyes,  shall  be  deemed  to 
be  equal  to  total  disability. 

Massachusetts. — A  weekly  compensation  equal  to  one-half  average 
weekly  wages;  maximum,  $10;  minimum,  $4  per  week,  for 
not  exceeding  500  weeks  and  an  amount  of  $3,000. 

Michigan. — A  weekly  compensation  equal  to  one-half  average  weekly 
wages;  maximum  $10,  and  minimum  $4.  Period  limited 
to  500  weeks;  compensation  not  to  exceed  $4,000.  Loss  of 
both  hands,  or  both  arms,  or  both  feet,  or  both  legs,  or  both 
eyes,  or  of  any  two  thereof  constitute  total  and  permanent 
disability. 

Minnesota. — For  permanent  total  disability,  50  per  cent  of  the  weekly 
wages,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $10  per  week  and  a  mini- 
mum of  $6  per  week,  during  a  period  not  to  exceed  400 
weeks;  with  a  proviso  that  where  the  weekly  wage  is  less 
than  $6  per  week  the  injured  person  shall  receive  the  full 
wages.  Loss  of  both  hands,  both  arms,  both  feet,  both  leg&; 


78  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

both  eyes,  or  any  two  thereof,  or  total  loss  of  mental  facuV 
ties,  or  complete  paralysis  of  both  legs,  or  both  arms,  shall 
constitute  total  disability. 

Nebraska. — For  the  first  300  weeks  of  total  disability,  50  per  cent 
of  the  wages  received  at  the  time  of  injury,  with  a  maxi- 
mum of  $10  per  week  and  a  minimum  of  $5  per  week;  pro- 
vided that  if,  at  the  time  of  injury,  the  employee  receives 
wages  of  less  than  $5  per  week  then  he  shall  receive  the  full 
amount  of  such  weekly  wages  as  compensation.  After  the 
first  300  weeks  of  total  disability,,  for  the  remainder  of  the 
life  of  the  employee,  but  not  to  extend  beyond  the  period 
of  disability,  40  per  cent  of  the  wages  received  at  the 
time  of  the  injury;  with  a  maximum  of  $8  per  week  and  a 
minimum  of  $4  per  week;  provided  that  if,  at  the  time  of 
the  injury,  the  employee  receives  wages  of  less  than  $4  per 
week,  then  he  shall  receive  the  full  amount  of  such  wages 
as  compensation. 

Nevada.  -  Compensation  for  complete  disability  is  50  per  cent  of 
average  monthly  wages,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $60  and 
a  minimum  of  $20  per  month,  and  a  maximum  period  of 
100  months;  the  total  amount  not  to  exceed  $5,000.  Loss 
of  both  hands,  or  both  arms,  or  both  legs,  or  both  feet,  or 
both  eyes,  or  any  two  thereof,  shall  constitute  total  and 
permanent  disability  with  compensation  according  to  the 
provisions  for  compensation  for  complete  disability. 

New  Hampshire.  —  Fifty  per  cent  of  the  average  weekly  earnings 
when  at  work  on  full  time  during  the  preceding  year,  not 
to  exceed  the  damage  suffered;  and  subject  to  a  maximum 
of  $10  per  week,  extending  through  a  period  of  not  more 
than  300  weeks  from  the  date  of  the  accident. 

New  Jersey. — For  injury  producing  temporary  disability,  50  per  cent 
of  wages,  subject  to  maximum  of  $10  and  minimum  of  $5 
per  week,  except  where  weekly  wage  less  than  $5,  then  full 
wages.  Maximum  period  of  300  weeks.  For  disability, 
total  in  character  and  permanent  in  quality,  50  per  cent  of 
the  wages  received  at  the  time  of  injury,  subject  to  a  maxi- 
mum of  $10  per  week  and  a  minimum  of  $5  per  week;  with 
a  proviso  that  if  at  the  time  of  the  injury  the  employee 
receives  less  than  $5  per  week  he  shall  receive  the  full  amount 
of  wages  per  week.  The  compensation  shall  not  extend 
beyond  a  period  of  400  weeks.  Loss  of  both  hands,  or  both 
arms,  or  both  feet,  or  both  legs,  or  both  eyes,  or  any  two 
thereof,  to  constitute  permanent  total  disability. 

New  York. — In  case  of  temporary  total  disability,  66 §  per  cent  of 
the  average  weekly  wages  during  the  continuance  of  the 
disability,  but  not  in  excess  of  $3,500.  In  case  of  total  dis- 
ability adjudged  to  be  permanent,  66§  per  cent  of  the  average 
weekly  wages  during  the  continuance  of  such  total  disability. 
Loss  of  both  hands,  or  both  arms,  or  both  feet,  or  both 
le^s,  or  both  eyes,  or  any  two  thereof  shall,  in  the  absence 
of  conclusive  proof  to  the  contrary,  constitute  permanent 
total  disability.  In  all  other  cases  permanent  total  disa- 
bility shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  facts. 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  79 

Ohio. — Where  disability  is  temporary  but  total,  66§  per  cent  average 
weekly  wages,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $12  and  a  mini- 
mum of  $5  per  week,  except  where  weekly  wage  less  than 
$5,  then  full  wages;  subject  also  to  maximum  period  of  six 
years  from  date  of  injury  and  maximum  amount  of  $3,750. 
Where  disability  is  total  and  permanent,  66§  per  cent 
average  weekly  wages,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $12  and  a 
minimum  of  $5  per  week,  except  where  weekly  wage  is  less 
than  $5;  then  full  wage  to  continue  until  death.  Loss  of 
both  hands,  or  both  arms,  or  both  feet,  or  both  legs,  or  both 
eyes,  or  any  two  thereof  constitutes  total  disability  with 
compensation  accordingly. 

Oregon. — Tn  case  of  permanent  total  disability,  if  unmarried  at  the 
time  of  the  injury,  the  sum  of  $30  per  month.  If  the  work- 
man have  a  wile  or  invalid  husband,  but  no  child  under  the 
age  of  16  years,  the  sum  of  $35  per  month ;  if  the  husband  is  not 
an  invalid,  the  monthly  payment  of  $35  shall  be  reduced  to 
$30.  If  the  workman  have  a  wife  or  husband,  and  a  child  or 
children  under  the  age  of  16  years,  or  being  a  widow  or  widower 
have  any  such  child  or  children,  the  monthly  payment  last 
described  shall  be  increased  by  $6  for  each  such  child  until 
such  child  shall  arrive  at  the  age  of  16  years;  subject  to  a 
monthly  payment  of  $50.  In  case  of  temporary  total  disa- 
bility the  above  provisions  for  payment  in  case  of  perma- 
nent total  disability  shall  apply  so  long  as  the  total  disabilitj^ 
shall  continue,  increased  50  per  cent  for  the  first  six  months 
of  such  continuance,  but  in  no  case  shall  the  increase  operate 
to  make  the  monthly  payment  exceed  60  per  cent  of  the 
monthly  wage  the  workman  is  receiving  at  the  time  of  his 
injury. 

Rhode  Island. — Fifty  per  cent  of  the  employee's  average  weekly  wages, 
earnings,  or  salary,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $10  per  week 
and  a  minimum  of  $4  per  week  and  limited  to  a  period  of 
500  weeks  from  date  of  injury.  The  total  and  irrevocable 
loss  of  sight  in  both  eyes,  the  loss  of  both  feet  at  or  above 
the  ankle,  the  loss  of  both  hands  at  or  above  the  wrist,  the 
loss  of  one  hand  or  one  foot,  and  injury  to  the  spine  result- 
ing in  permanent  and  complete  paralysis  of  the  legs  or  arms, 
and  an  injury  to  the  skull  resulting  in  incurable  imbecility 
or  insanity,  are  conclusively  presumed  to  constitute  perma- 
nent total  disability. 

Texas. — Compensation  for  total  disability  is  60  per  cent  average 
weekly  wages,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $15  and  a  minimum 
of  $5  per  week,  for  not  to  exceed  400  weeks. 

Washington. — Permanent  total  disability  means  the  loss  of  both  legs 
or  both  arms,  or  one  leg  and  one  arm,  total  loss  of  eyesight, 
paralysis  or  other  condition  permanenetly  incapacitating 
the  workman  from  performing  any  work  at  any  gainful  occu- 
pation. When  permanent  total  disability  results  from  the 
injury  the  workman  shall  receive  monthly  during  the  period 
of  such  disability:  If  unmarried  at  the  time  of  the  injury, 
the  sum  of  $20.  If  the  workman  have  a  wife  or  invalid  hus- 
band, but  no  child  under  the  age  of  16  years,  the  sum  of  $25. 


80  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

If  the  husband  u  not  an  invalid,  the  monthly  payment  of  $25 
shall  be  reduced  to  $15.  If  the  workman  have  a  wife  or  hus- 
band and  a  child  or  children  under  the  age  of  16  years,  or, 
being  a  widow  or  widower,  have  any  such  child  or  children, 
the  monthly  payment  provided  in  the  preceding  paragraph 
shall -be  increased  by  $5  for  each  such  child  until  such  child 
shall  arrive  at  the  age  of  16  years,  but  the  total  monthly 
payment  shall  not  exceed  $35.  If  the  injured  workman 
die  during  the  period  of  total  disability,  whatever  the  cause 
of  death,  leaving  a  widow,  invalid  widower,  or  child  under 
the  age  of  16  years,  the  surviving  widow  or  invalid  widower 
shall  receive  $20  per  manth  until  death  or  remarriage,  to  be 
increased  $5  per  month  for  each  child  under  the  age  of  16 
years  until  such  child  shall  arrive  at  the  age  of  16  years;  but 
if  such  child  is  or  shall  be  without  father  or  mother,  such 
child  shall  receive  $10  per  month  until  arriving  at  the  age 
of  16  years.  The  total  combined  monthly  payment  under 
this  paragraph  shall  in  no  case  exceed  $35.  Upon  remar- 
riage the  payments  on  account  of  a  child  or  children  shall 
continue  as  before  to  the  child  *r  children.  When  the  total 
disability  is  only  temporary,  the  schedule  of  payment  re- 
ferred to  above  shall  apply  so  long  as  the  total  disability 
shall  continue,  increased  50*  per  cent  for  the  first  six  months 
of  such  continuance,  but  in  no  case  shall  the  increase  operate 
to  make  the  monthly  payment  exceed  60  per  cent  of  the 
monthly  wage  (the  daily  wage  multiplied  by  26)  the  work- 
man was  receiving  at  the  time  of  his  injury.  As  soon  as  re- 
covery is  so  complete  that  the  present  earning  power  of  the 
workman,  at  any  kind  of  work,  is  restored  to  that  existing 
at  the  time  of  the  occurrence  of  the  injury  the  payments 
shall  cease.  If  and  so  long  as  the  present  earning  power  is 
only  partially  restored  the  payments  shall  continue  in  the 
proportion  which  the  new  earning  power  shall  bear  to  the 
old.  No  compensation  shall  be  payable  out  of  the  accident 
fund  unless  the  loss  of  earning  power  shall  exceed  5  per  cent. 

West  Virginia. — Compensation  for  total  disability  shall  be  50  per  cent 
.  of  the  average  weekly  wage,  to  continue  until  the  death  of 
the  disabled  person,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $6  and  a 
minimum  of  $3  per  week. 

Wisconsin. — Sixty-five  per  cent  of  the  average  weekly  earnings  dur- 
ing the  period  of  total  disability,  to  be  increased  after  the 
first  90  days  to  100  per  cent  of  the  average  weekly  earnings 
if  the  disability  is  such  as  to  render  the  injured  employee  so 
helpless  as  to  require  the  assistance  of  a  nurse.  In  case  of 
temporary  disability  the  compensation  shall  not  exceed  four 
times  the  average  annual  earnings  of  the  employee,  and  in 
the  case  of  permanent  total  disability  the  compensation  shall 
not  exceed  six  times  the  average  annual  earnings  of  the 
employee.  The  aggregate  disability  shall  not  in  any  event 
extend  beyond  15  years  from  date  of  the  accident.  Total 
blindness  of  both  eyes,  or  loss  of  both  arms  at  or  near  the 
shoulder,  or  of  both  legs  at  or  near  the  hip,  or  one  arm  at 
the  shoulder  and  one  leg  at  the  hip,  shall  constitute  perma- 
nent total  disability.  This  enumeration  is  not  exclusive, 
but  in  other  cases  the  commission  shall  find  the  facts. 


DIGEST   OF    STATE    LAWS.  81 

AMOUNT   OF    COMPENSATION — PARTIAL   DISABILITY. 

Arizona. — One-half  of  the  difference  between  the  average  earnings  of 
the  workman  at  the  time  of  the  accident  and  the  average 
amount  he  is  earning  or  is  capable  of  earning  thereafter, 
with  a  proviso  that  in  no  case  shall  the  total  amount  of  such 
payments  exceed  $4,000. 

Oalifomia. — Where  disability  is  temporary  and  partial,  compensation 
is  65  per  cent  of  the  weekly  loss  in  wages  during  the  period 
of  such  disability,  but  the  aggregate  indemnity  must  not 
exceed  three  times  the  average  annual  earnings  of  the  em- 
ployee, nor  must  the  period  extend  beyond  240  weeks  from 
the  date  of  accident. 

Where  the  disability  is  partial  but  permanent,  the  per- 
centage of  disability  and  the  disability  indemnity  are  com- 
puted and  allowed  as  follows:  For  a  10  per  cent  disability, 
65  per  cent  of  average  weekly  earnings  during  40  weeks;  for 
a  20  per  cent  disability,  65  per  cent  during  80  weeks;  for  a 
30  per  cent  disability,  65  per  cent  during  120  weeks;  for  a  40 
per  cent  disability,  65  per  cent  during  160  weeks;  for  a  50 
per  cent  disability,  65  per  cent  during  200  weeks;  for  a  60 
per  cent  disability,  65  per  cent  during  240  weeks;  for  a  70 
per  cent  disability,  65  per  cent  during  240  weeks,  and  there- 
after 10  per  cent  of  such  earnings  during  the  remainder  of 
life;  for  an  80  per  cent  disability,  65  per  cent  during  240 
weeks,  and  thereafter  20  per  cent  of  such  earnings  during  the 
remainder  of  life;  for  a  90  per  cent  disability,  65  per  cent 
during  240  weeks,  and  thereafter  30  per  cent  of  such  earnings 
during  the  remainder  of  life. 

Connecticut. — Compensation  for  partial  disability  is  a  weekly  sum 
equal  to  one-half  the  difference  between  the  average  weekly 
earnings  before  the  injury  and  what  the  injured  employee 
is  able  to  earn  thereafter;  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $10  per 
week,  for  a  period  not  to  exceed  312  weeks. 

Illinois. — Where  disability  is  partial  and  permanent,  compensation 
shall  be  an  amount  equaling  one-half  of  the  difference- 
between  the  average  earning  power  before  and  after  the 
injury,  and  not  less  than  $5  nor  more  than  $12  per  week,  and 
for  a  period  not  to  exceed  eight  years. 

Iowa. — In  all  cases  of  partial  disability,  other  than  those  enumerated 
in  the  schedule  covering  lost  members,  the  compensation 
shall  bear  such  relation  to  the  amounts  stated  in  the  schedule 
as  the  disability  bears  to  those  produced  by  the  injuries 
named  in  the  schedule;  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $10  per 
week  and  a  minimum  of  $5  per  week,  and  to  continue  dunng 
the  period  of  such  disability,  not  to  exceed  300  weeks. 

Kansas. — Not  less  than  25  per  cent  nor  more  than  50  per  cent  of  the 
average  weekly  wages  of  the  workman;  subject  to  a  mini- 
mum of  $3  per  week,  and  a  maximum  of  $12  per  week,  during 
the  period  of  such  disability,  not  to  exceed  eight  years.  If 
the  workman  is  under  21  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  accident, 
and  the  average  weekly  earnings  are  less  than  $10,  compen- 
sation shall  not  be  less  than  75  per  cent  of  his  average 
earnings. 

30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2 6 


82  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Maryland. — A  weekly  payment  during  such  disability  equal  to  the 
difference  between  the  weekly  benefit  payment,  during  a  period 
of  total  disability,  and  the  average  amount  whicn  the 
injured  person  is  able  to  earn  after  the  accident. 

Massachusetts. — A  weekly  compensation  equal  to  one-half  the  differ- 
ence between  the  average  weekly  wages  before  the  injury 
and  the  average  weekly  wages  that  he  is  able  to  earn  there- 
after; not  to  exceed  $10  per  week  and  for  a  period  not  to 
exceed  300  weeks  from  the  date  of  injury. 

Michigan. — A  weekly  compensation  equal  to  one-half  the  difference 
between  his  average  weekly  wages  before  the  injury  and 
the  average  weekly  wages  which  he  is  able  to  earn  there- 
after; with  a  maximum  of  $10  per  week  and  a  minimum 
of  $4  per  week;  limited  to  a  period  of  300  weeks. 

Minnesota. — In  all  cases  not  enumerated  in  the  schedule  for  lost 
members  the  compensation  shall  be  50  per  cent  of  the 
difference  between  the  wage  of  the  workman  at  the  time 
of  the  injury  and  the  wage  he  is  able  to  earn  in  his  partially 
disabled  condition,  subject  to  maximum  of  $10  and  min- 
imum of  $6  per  week;  payment  of  such  compensation  not 
to  extend  beyond  a  period  of  300  weeks. 

Nebraska. — Fifty  per~  cent  of  the  difference  between  the  wages 
received  at  the  time  of  injury  and  the  earning  power  of 
the  employee  thereafter;  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $10  per 
week;  to  continue  during  the  period  of  such  partial  dis- 
ability; not,  however,  to  extend  beyond  300  weeks  after  the 
date  of  the  accident. 

Nevada. — Compensation  for  partial  disability  is  one-half  the  differ- 
ence between  the  wages  earned  before  the  injury  and  the 
wages  the  injured  person  is  able  to  earn  thereafter;  sub- 
ject to  a  maximum  of  $40  per  month  and  for  a  period  not 
to  exceed  60  months. 

New  Hampshire. — One-half  of  the  difference  between  the  average 
weekly  earnings  before  the  accident  and  the  average  weekly 
amount  which  he  is  earning,  or  is  able  to  earn,  after  the 
accident,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $10  per  week,  and 
limited  to  a  period  of  300  weeks  from  date  of  the  accident, 
and  not  to  exceed  the  damage  suffered. 

New  Jersey. — For  disability,  partial  in  character  but  permanent  in 
quality,  the  compensation  shall  be  based  upon  the  extent 
of  such  disability. 

Compensation  for  injuries  producing  temporary  disability, 
50  per  cent  of  the  wages  received  at  the  time  of  injury, 
subject  to  a  maximum  of  $10  per  week  and  a  minimum  of 
$5  per  week;  provided  that  if,  at  the  time  of  the  injury,  he 
receive  wages  of  less  than  $5  per  week  then  he  shall  receive 
the  full  amount  of  such  wages  per  week.  Compensation  not 
to  extend  beyond  a  period  of  300  weeks. 

New  York. — Sixty-six  and  two-thirds  per  cent  of  the  difference 
between  the  average  weekly  wages  of  the  employee  and  his 
wage-earning  capacity  thereafter,  during  the  continuance 
of  such  partial  disability;  but  not  in  excess  of  $3,500;  and 
subject  to  a  maximum  of  $15  per  week  and  a  minimum  of 
$5  per  week. 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  83 

Ohio. — Compensation  for  partial  disability  shall  be  66§  per  cent  of 
the  impairment  of  earning  capacity  of  the  injured  employee, 
during  the  continuance  thereof,  subject  to  a  maximum  of 
$12  weekly,  and  not  to  exceed  in  total  payments  the  sum 
of  $3,750. 

Oregon. — When  the  disability  is,  or  becomes,  partial  only  and  is 
temporary  in  character,  the  workman  shall  receive  for  a 
period  not  to  exceed  two  years  that  proportion  of  the  pay- 
ments provided  for  total  disability  which  his  earning  power 
in  any  kind  of  work  bears  to  that  existing  at  the  time  of  the 
occurrence  of  the  injury. 

Permanent  partial  disability  means  loss  of  either  one 
arm,  one  hand,  one  foot,  loss  of  hearing  in  one  or  both  ears, 
loss  of  one. eye,  one  or  more  fingers,  dislocation  where  liga- 
ments are  severed  or  any  other  injury  known  in  surgery  to 
be  permanent  partial  disability. 

Rhode  Island. — Fifty  per  cent  of  the  difference  between  the  average 
weekly  wages  at  the  time  of  the  accident  and  the  average 
weekly  wage  capacity  after  the  accident;  subject  to  a 
maximum  of  $10  per  week,  to  continue  during  the  disability, 
not  to  exceed  a  period  of  300  weeks. 

Texas. — Where  incapacity  is  partial,  compensation  shall  equal 
60  per  cent  of  the  difference  between  average  weekly  wages 
before  the  injury  and  the  average  weekly  wages  the  work- 
man is  able  to  earn  thereafter.  Subject  to  a  maximum  of 
$15  per  week,  and  for  a  period  not  to  exceed  300  weeks. 

Washington. — For  any  permanent,  partial  disability  resulting  from 
injury,  the  workman  shall  receive  compensation  in  a  lump 
sum  in  the  amount  equal  to  the  extent  of  the  injury  to  be 
decided  in  the  first  instance  by  the  department,  but  not  to 
exceed  the  sum  of  $1,500.  The  loss  of  one  major  arm  at  or 
above  the  elbow  shall  be  deemed  a  maximum  permanent  par- 
tial disability.  Compensation  for  any  other  permanent  par- 
tial disability  shall  be  in  the  proportion  which  the  extent  of 
such  disability  shall  bear  to  a  said  maximum.  If  the  injured 
workman  be  under  the  age  of  21  years  and  unmarried,  the 
parents  or  parent  shall  also  receive  a  lump  sum  payment 
equal  to  10  per  cent  of  the  amount  awarded  the  minor 
workman. 

Permanent  partial  disability  means  the  loss  of  either 
one  foot,  one  leg,  one  hand,  one  arm,  one  eye,  one  or  more 
fingers,  one  or  more  toes,  any  dislocation  wrhere  ligaments 
are  severed  or  any  other  injury  known  in  surgery  to  be 
permanent  partial  disability. 

West  Virginia. — Fifty  per  cent  of  the  impairment  of  the  employee's 
earning  capacity,  not  to  exceed  a  maximum  of  $8  per  week, 
nor  to  be  less  than  a  minimum  of  $4  per  week;  during  a 
period  not  to  exceed  26  weeks. 

Wisconsin. — Sixty-five  per  cent  of  the  weekly  loss  in  wages  during 
the  period  of  such  partial  disability,  not  to  exceed  in  total 
four  times  the  average  annual  earnings  of  the  employee; 
and  shall  be  paid  during  a  period  not  exceeding  15  years. 


84  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

AMOUNT   OF    COMPENSATION — LOSS    OF    MEMBERS. 

Arizona. — No  schedule  for  specific  injuries. 

California. — No  schedule  for  specific  injuries. 

Connecticut. — Following  is  a  special  schedule  for  the  loss  of  certain 
members,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $10  per  week  and  a 
minimum  of  $5  per  week:  Arm  (or  complete  loss  of  use  of), 
50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  208  weeks;  hand  (or  complete 
loss  of  use  of),  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  156  weeks;  leg  (or 
complete  loss  of  use  of),  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  182 
weeks;  foot  (or  complete  loss  of  use  of),  50  per  cent  weekly 
wages  for  130  weeks;  complete  loss  of  hearing,  both  ears, 
50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  156  wreeks;  complete  loss  of 
hearing  in  one  ear,  50  per  cent  weekly- wages  for  52  weeks; 
complete  loss  of  sight  in  one  eye,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages 
for  104  weeks;  thumb,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  38 
weeks;  index  finger,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  38  weeks; 
second  finger,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  30  weeks;  third 
finger,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  25  weeks;  fourth  finger, 
50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  20  weeks;  great  toe,  50  per 
cent  weekly  wages  for  38  weeks;  other  toes  (each),  50  per 
cent  weekly  wages  for  13  weeks. 

Loss  of  one  phalange  of  a  thumb  or  two  phalanges  of  a 
finger  shall  be  considered  as  half  the  loss  of  a  thumb  or  finger 
respectively,  with  compensation  accordingly. 

Illinois.— In  addition  to  compensation  during  the  period  of  temporary 
total  incapacity,  compensation  shall  be  paid  for  certain  spe- 
cific injuries  (subject  to  a  maximum  of  $12  and  a  minimum 
of  $5  per  week)  as  follows :  Loss  of  or  permanent  and  com- 
plete loss  of  use  of  thumb,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  60 
weeks;  index  finger,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  35  weeks; 
second  finger,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  30  weeks;  third 
finger,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  20  weeks ;  fourth  finger, 
50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  15  weeks;  great  toe,  50  per 
cent  weekly  wages  for  30  weeks;  other  toes,  50  per  cent 
weekly  wages  for  10  weeks;  hand,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages 
for  150  weeks;  arm,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  200  weeks; 
foot,  50  per  cent  weekly  wages  for  125  weeks;  leg,  50  per 
cent  weekly  wages  for  175  weeks;  sight  of  one  eye,  50  per 
cent  weekly  wages  for  100  weeks. 

Loss  of  first  phalange  of  thumb,  or  of  any  finger  or  toe, 
shall  be  considered  equal  to  the  loss  of  one-half  of  such 
member.  Loss  of  more  than  one  phalange  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  the  loss  of  the  entire  member,  with  compensation 
accordingly.  The  loss  of  both  hands,  or  both  arms,  or  both 
feet,  or  both  legs,  or  both  eyes,  or  any  two  thereof  consti- 
tutes total  and  permanent  disability,  with  compensation 
accordingly. 

Iowa. —  (1)  For  the'loss  of  a  thumb,  50  per  cent  of  daily  wages  dur- 
ing 40  weeks;  (2)  for  the  loss  of  a  first  finger,  commonly  called 
the  index  finger,  50  per  cent  of  daily  wages  during  30  weeks; 
(3)  for  the  loss  of  a  second  finger,  50  per  cent  of  daily  wages 
during  25  weeks;  (4)  for  the  loss  of  a  third  finger,  50  per 
cent  of  daily  wages  during  20  weeks;  (5)  for  the  loss  of  a 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  85 

fourth  finger,  commonly  called  the  little  finger,  50  per  cent 
of  daily  wages  for  15  weeks;  (6)  for  the  loss  of  the  first 
phalange  of  the  thumb  or  of  any  finger  shall  be  considered 
to  be  equal  to  the  loss  of  one-half  of  such  thumb  or  finger 
and  compensation  shall  be  one-half  of  the  amounts  above 
specified;  (7)  the  loss  of  more  than  one  phalange  shall  be 
considered  as  the  loss  of  the  entire  finger  or  thumb ;  provided, 
however,  that  in  no  case  shall  the  amount  received  for  more 
than  one  finger  exceed  the  amount  provided  in  this  schedule 
for  the  loss  of  a  hand ;  (8)  for  the  loss  of  a  great  toe,  50  per 
cent  of  daily  wages  during  25  weeks ;  (9)  for  the  loss  of  one  of 
the  toes  other  than  the  great  toe,  50  per  cent  of  daily  wages 
during  15  weeks;  (10)  for  the  loss  of  the  first  phalange  of 
any  toe,  shall  be  considered  to  be  equal  to  the  loss  of  one- 
half  of  such  toe  and  the  compensation  shall  be  one-half  of 
the  amount  above  specified;  (11)  the  loss  of  more  than  one 
phalange  shall  be  considered  as  the  loss  of  the  entire  toe; 
(12)  for  the  loss  of  a  hand,  50  per  cent  of  daily  wages 
during  150  weeks;  (13)  for  the  loss  of  an  arm  50  per  cent  of 
daily  wages  during  200  weeks;  (14)  for  the  loss  of  a  foot, 
50  per  cent  of  daily  wages  during  125  weeks;  (15)  for  the 
loss  of  a  leg,  50  per  cent  of  daily  wages  during  175  weeks; 
(16)  for  the  loss  of  an  eye,  50  per  cent  of  daily  wages  dur- 
ing 100  weeks;  (17)  for  the  loss  of  both  arms,  or  both  hands, 
or  both  feet,  or  both  legs,  or  both  eyes,  or  of  any  two  thereof, 
shall  constitute  total  and  permanent  disability  to  be  com- 
pensated according  to  provisions  of  clause  I,  section  10,  part 
1,  hereof;  (18)  in  all  other  cases  in  this,  clause  J,  the  com- 
pensation shall  bear  such  relation  to  the  amount  stated  in 
the  above  schedule  as  the  disability  bears  to  those  produced 
by  the  injuries  named  in  the  schedule.  Should  the  employee 
and  employer  be  unable  to  agree  upon  the  amount  of  com- 
pensation to  be  paid  in  cases  not  specifically  covered  by  the 
schedule,  the  amount  of  compensation  shall  be  settled  ac- 
cording to  provisions  of  this  act  as  in  other  cases  of  dis- 
agreement; (19)  the  amount  specified  in  this,  clause  J,  and 
subdivisions  thereof  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  limitations 
as  to  maximum  and  minimum  weekly  payments  as  are  stated 
in  clause  H,  section  10,  hereof. 

Kansas. — No  schedule  for  specific  injuries. 

Maryland. — The  loss  by  actual  separation  at  or  above  the  wrist  or 
ankle  of  one  hand  or  one  foot  shall  be  equal  to  one-half  of 
total  disability,  and  the  loss  of  one  eye  shall  be  equal  to 
one-fifth  of  total  disability. 

Massachusetts. — Loss  of  members  or  injury  rendering  them  perma- 
nently incapable  of  use  are  compensated  in  addition  to  all 
other  compensation  by  the  payment  of  50  per  cent  of  the 
average  weekly  wages  of  the  injured  person  for  the  period 
stated,  with  a  maximum  of  $10  and  a  minimum  of  $4  per 
week. 

(a)  Both  hands,  at  or  above  the  wrist;  both  feet,  at  or 
above  the  ankle;  one  hand  and  one  foot;  or  the  reduction  of 
one- tenth  of  normal  vision  in  both  eyes  with  glasses,  100 
weeks;  (6)  either  hand,  at  or  above  the  wrist;  either  foot,  at 


86  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

or  above  the  ankle;  the  reduction  of  one- tenth  of  normal 
vision  of  either  eye  with  glasses,  50  weeks;  (c)  two  or  more 
fingers,  including  thumbs  or  toes,  severed  at  or  above  the 
second  joint,  25  weeks;  (d)  one  phalange  of  a  finger,  thumb, 
or  toe,  12  weeks. 

Michigan. — Loss  of  members  are  compensated  by  the  payment  of  50 
per  cent  of  the  average  weekly  wages  during  the  period 
stated.  Thumb,  60  weeks;  first  finger,  35  weeks;  second 
finger,  30  weeks;  third  finger,  20  weeks;  fourth  finger,  15 
weeks;  great  toe,  30  weeks;  toe  other  than  great  toe,  10 
weeks.  Hand,  150  weeks;  arm,  200  weeks;  foot,  125 
weeks;  leg,  175  weeks;  eye,  100  weeks. 

Minnesota. — Permanent  partial  disability:  Compensation  based  upon 
extent  of  disability.  Special  schedule  for  following  losses: 
Thumb,  60  weeks  half  wages;  index  finger,  35  weeks  half 
wages;  second  finger,  30  weeks  half  wages;  third  finger,  20 
weeks  half  wages;  fourth  finger,  15  weeks  half  wages;  great 
toe,  30  weeks  half  wages;  other  toes  (each),  10  weeks  half 
wages;  hand,  150  weeks  half  wages;  arm,  200  weeks  half 
wages;  foot,  125  weeks  half  wages;  leg,  175  weeks  half  wages; 
eye,  100  weeks  half  wages. 

Loss  of  first  phalange  of  a  thumb,  any  finger,  or  toe,  shall 
be  considered  equal  to  loss  of  one-half  of  such  member,  and 
loss  of  more  than  one  phalange  shall  be  considered  equal  to 
loss  of  entire  member,  with  compensation  payable  accord- 
ingly. 

The  compensation  provided  in  the  above  schedule  is  in  lieu 
of  all  other  compensation  in  such  cases  and  is  subject  to  a 
maximum  of  $10  per  week  and  a  minimum  of  $6  per  week, 
with  the  proviso  that  if  at  the  time  of  injury  the  employee 
receives  wages  of  less  than  $6  per  week,  he  shall  receive  the 
full  amount  of  -such  wages  per  week. 

In  all  cases  of  permanent  partial  disability  within  the 
foregoing  schedule,  it  shall  be  considered  that  permanent 
loss  of  the  use  of  the  member  shall  be  equivalent  to  the  same 
amount  of  compensation  as  for  the  loss  of  that  member. 
Nebraska. — For  the  loss  of  a  hand,  50  per  cent  of  the  wages  during 
175  weeks;  for  the  loss  of  an  arm,  50  per  cent  of  wages 
during  215  weeks;  for  the  loss  of  a  foot,  50  per  cent  of  wages 
during  150  weeks;  for  the  loss  of  a  leg,  50  per  cent  of  wages 
during  215  weeks;  for  the  loss  of  an  eye,  50  per  cent  of 
wages  during!25  weeks;  for  the  loss  of  any  two  or  more  of 
such  members,  not  constituting  total  disability,  50  per 
cent  of  wages  during  the  aggregate  of  the  periods  speci- 
fied for  each. 

The  loss  of  both  hands  or  both  arms,  or  both  feet,  or 
both  legs,  or  both  eyes  shall  constitute  total  disability,  to 
be  compensated  according  to  the  provisions  of  subdivision 
1  of  this  section. 

Amputation  between  the  elbow  and  the  wrist  shall  be 
considered  as  the  equivalent  of  the  loss  of  a  hand,  and 
amputation  between  the  knee  and  the  ankle  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  the  equivalent  of  the  loss  of  a  foot.  Amputation 
at  or  above  the  elbow  shall  be  considered  as  the  loss  of  an 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  87 

arm,  and  amputation  at  or  above  the  knee  shall  be  con- 
sidered as  the  loss  of  a  leg.  Permanent  loss  of  the  use  of 
a  hand,  arm,  foot,  leg,  or  eye  shall  be  considered  as  the  equiva- 
lent of  the  loss  of  such  hand,  arm,  foot,  leg,  or  eye.  Com- 
pensation under  this  subdivision  shall  not  be  more  than  $10 
per  week  nor  less  than  $5  per  week;  provided  that  if  at 
the  time  of  injury  the  employee  receives  wages  of  less  than 
$5  per  week,  then  he  shall  receive  the  full  amount  of  such 
wages  per  week  as  compensation. 

Nevada. — There  is  a  special  schedule,  subject  to  a  maximum  of 
$60  and  a  minimum  of  $20  monthly,  for  the  loss  of  the 
following  members :  Thumb,  50  per  cent  monthly  wages  for 
15  months;  index  finger,  50  per  cent  monthly  wages  for  9 
months;  second  finger,  50  per  cent  monthly  wages  for  7 
months;  third  finger,  50  per  cent  monthly  wages  for  5 
months;  fourth  finger,  50  per  cent  monthly  wages  for  4 
months ;  great  toe,  50  per  cent  monthly  wages  for  7  months ; 
other  toes  (each),  50  per  cent  monthly  wages  for  1\  months; 
hand,  50  per  cent  monthly  wages  for  40  months;  arm,  50 
per  cent  monthly  wages  for  50  months;  foot,  50  per  cent 
monthly  wages  if  or  35  months;  leg,  50  per  cent  monthly 
wages  for  45  months;  eye,  50  per  cent  monthly  wages  for 
25  months. 

Loss  of  more  than  one  phalange  shall  be  considered  as  the 
loss  of  the  entire  finger  or  thumb;  provided,  however,  that 
in  no  case  shall  the  amount  received  for  more  than  one 
finger  exceed  the  amount  for  the  loss  of  a  hand.  Loss  of 
the  first  phalange  of  any  toe  shall  be  considered  as  the, 
loss  of  one-half  of  such  toe,  with  compensation  accordingly. 

New  Hampshire. — No  schedule  for  specific  injuries. 

New  Jersey. —  Special  schedule  for  the  loss  of  the  following  members: 
Thumb,  60  weeks,  half  wages;  index  finger,  35  weeks,  half 
wages;  second  finger,  30  weeks,  half  wages;  third  finger,  20 
weeks,  half  wages;  fourth  finger,  15  weeks,  half  wages;  great 
toe,  30  weeks,  half  wages;  other  toes,  (each)  10  weeks,  half 
wages;  hand,  150  weeks,  half  wages;  arm,  200  weeks,  half 
wages;  foot,  125  weeks,  half  wages;  leg,  175  weeks,  half 
wages;  eye,  100  weeks,  half  wages. 

Loss  of  the  first  phalange  of  thumb,  any  finger  or  any  toe 
shall  be  considered  equal  to  the  loss  of  one  half  of  such 
member  and  the  loss  of  more  than  one  phalange  shall  be 
considered  equal  to  the  loss  of  the  entire  member,  with 
compensation  accordingly. 

New  York. — Permanent  partial  disability:  In  case  of  disability  par- 
tial in  character  but  permanent  in  quality  the  compensation 
shall  be  66 §  per  cent  of  the  average  weekly  wages  and  shall 
be  paid  to  the  employee  for  the  period  named  in  the  schedule 
as  follows:  For  the  loss  of  a  thumb,  60  weeks;  for  the  loss  of 
of  a  first  finger,  commonly  called  index  finger,  46  weeks;  for 
the  loss  of  a  second  finger,  30  weeks;  for  the  loss  of  a  third 
finger,  25  weeks;  for  the  loss  of  a  fourth  finger,  commonly 
called  the  little  finger,  15  weeks;  the  loss  of  the  first  phalange 
of  the  thumb  or  finger  shall  be  considered  to  be  equal  to  the 
loss  of  one  half  of  such  thumb  or  finger,  and  compensation 


88  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

shall  be  one  half  of  the  amount  above  specified.  The  loss 
of  more  than  one  phalange  shall  be  considered  as  the  loss  of 
the  entire  thumb  or  finger:  Provided,  however,  That  in  no 
case  shall  the  amount  received  for  more  than  one  finger 
exceed  the  amount  provided  in  this  schedule  for  the  loss  of 
a  hand;  for  the  loss  of  a  great  toe,  38  weeks;  for  the  loss  of 
one  of  the  toes  other  than  the  great  toe,  16  weeks;  the  loss 
of  the  first  phalange  of  any  toe  shall  be  considered  to  be  equal 
to  the  loss  of  one  half  of  said  toe,  and  the  compensation  shall 
be  one  half  of  the  amount  specified.  The  loss  of  more  than 
one  phalange  shall  be  considered  as  the  loss  of  the  entire  toe. 
The  loss  of  a  hand,  244  weeks;  for  the  loss  of  an  arm,  312 
weeks;  for  the  loss  of  a  foot,  205  weeks;  for  the  loss  of  a 
leg,  288  weeks-;  for  the  loss  of  an  eye,  128  weeks;  perma- 
nent loss  of  the  use  of  a  hand,  arm,  foot,  leg,  or  eye  shall  be 
considered  as  the  equivalent  of  the  loss  of  such  hand,  arm, 
foot,  leg,  or  eye.  Amputation  between  the  elbow  and  the 
wrist  shall  be  considered  as  the  equivalent  of  the  loss  of  a 
hand.  Amputation  between  the  knee  and  the  ankle  shall 
be  considered  as  the  equivalent  of  the  loss  of  a  foot.  Ampu- 
tation at  or  above  the  elbow  shall  be  considered  as  loss  of  an 
arm.  Amputation  at  or  above  knee  equivalent  to  loss  of  leg. 
The  compensation  payments  above  provided  for  shall  not 
exceed,  except  in  the  case  of  the  loss  of  a  hand,  arm,  foot, 
leg,  or  an  eye,  $15  per  week  nor  be  less  than  $5  per  week: 
and  the  compensation  payments  in  case  of  the  loss  of  a  hand, 
arm,  foot,  leg,  or  an  eye  shall  not  exceed  $20  per  week  nor 
be  less  than  $5  per  week,  with  the  proviso  that  in  each  case, 
if  the  employee's  wages  at  the  time  of  injury  are  less  than  $5 
per  week,  he  shall  receive  his  full  weekly  wages. 
iere  is  a  special  schedule  for  the  loss  of  the  following  mem- 
bers: Thumb,  66§  per  cent  weekly  wage  during  60  weeks; 
index  finger,  66§  per  cent  weekly  wage  during  35  weeks; 
second  finger,  66§  per  cent  weekly  wage  during  30  weeks; 
third  finger,  66§  per  cent  weekly  wage  during  20  weeks; 
fourth  finger,  66 §  per  cent  weekly  wage  during  15  weeks; 
hand,  66§  per  cent  weekly  wage  during  150  weeks;  arm, 
66§  per  cent  weekly  wage  during  200  weeks;  great  toe,  66§ 
per  cent  weekly  wage  during  30  weeks;  other  toes  (each), 
66§  per  cent  weekly  wage  during  10  weeks;  foot,  66§  per 
cent  weekly  wage  during  125  weeks;  leg,  66§  per  cent 
weekly  wage  during  175  weeks;  eye,  66§  per  cent  weekly 
wage  during  100  weeks. 

Oregon.— Where  permanent  partial  disability  'shall  result  from  any 
injury,  the  workman  shall  receive  the  sum  of  $25  a  month 
for  the  period  stated  against  such  injury,  respectively,  as 
follows:  In  case  of  the  loss  by  separation  of  one  arm  at  or 
above  the  elbow  joint,  or  the  permanent  and  complete  loss 
of  the  use  of  one  arm,  96  months ;  the  loss  by  separation  of 
one  hand  at  or  above  the  wrist  joint,  or  the  permanent  and 
complete  loss  of  the  use  of  one  hand,  76  months;  the  loss 
by  separation  of  one  leg,  at  or  above  the  knee  joint,  or  the 
permanent  and  complete  loss  of  the  use  of  one  leg,  88 
months;  the  loss  by  separation  of  one  foot  at  or  above  the 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  89 

ankle  joint,  or  the  permanent  and  complete  loss  of  the  use 
of  one  foot,  64  months;  the  permanent  and  complete  loss 
of  hearing  in  both  ears,  96  months;  the  permanent  and 
complete  loss  of  hearing  in  one  ear,  48  months,  or,  at  the 
option  of  the  workman,  $900  in  a  lump  sum;  the  permanent 
and  complete  loss  of  the  sight  of  one  eye,  40  months,  or,  at 
the  option  of  the  workman,  $850  in  a  lump  sum;  the  loss 
by  separation  of  a  thumb,  24  months,  or,  at  the  option  of 
the  workman,  $600  in  a  lump  sum;  the  loss  by  separation 
of  a  first  finger,  16  months,  or,  at  the  option  of  the  workman, 
$350  in  a  lump  sum;  the  second  finger,  9  months,  or,  at  the 
option  of  the  workman,  $200  in  a  lump  sum;  a  third  finger, 
8  months,  or,  at  the  option  of  the  workman,  $175  in  a  lump 
sum ;  a  fourth  finger,  6  months,  or,  at  the  option  of  the  work- 
man, $150  in  a  lump  sum. 

The  loss  of  one  phalange  of  the  thumb  shall  be  considered 
equal  to  the  loss  of  one-half  a  thumb;  the  loss  of  one  phal- 
ange of  a  finger,  equal  to  the  loss  of  one-third  of  a  finger, 
and  the  loss  of  two  phalanges  of  a  finger,  equal  to  the  loss 
of  one-half  a  finger,  and  the  compensation  for  the  respective 
proportions  of  the  above  period  or  in  the  respective  propor- 
tions of  the  above  lump  sum  shall  be  payable.  The  loss  of 
more  than  one  phalange  of  a  thumb  or  more  than  two  pha- 
langes of  a  finger  shall  be  considered  as  the  loss  of  an  entire 
thumb  or  finger. 

The  loss  by  separation  of  a  great  toe,  10  months,  or,  at 
the  option  of  the  workman,  $250  in  a  lump  sum;  any  other 
toe,  4  months,  or,  at  the  option  of  the  workman,  $100  in  a 
lump  sum. 

Rhode  Island. — (a)  For  the  loss  by  severance  of  both  hands  at  or 
above  the  wrist,  or  both  feet  at  or  above  the  ankle,  or  the 
loss  of  one  hand  and  one  foot,  or  the  entire  and  irrecoverable 
loss  of  the  sight  of  both  eyes,  one-half  of  the  average  weekly 
wages,  earnings,  or  salary  of  the  injured  person,  but  not 
more  than  $10  nor  less  than  $4  a  week,  for  a  period  of  100 
weeks.  (6)  For  the  loss  by  severance  of  either  hand  at  or 
above  the  wrist,  or  either  foot  at  or  above  the  ankle,  or  the 
entire  and  irrecoverable  loss  of  the  sight  of  either  eye,  one-half 
the  average  weekly  wages,  earnings,  or  salary  of  the  injured 
person,  but  not  more  than  $10  nor  less  than  $4  a  week,  for 
a  period  of  50  weeks,  (c)  For  the  loss  by  severance  at  or 
above  the  second  joint  of  two  or  more  fingers,  including 
thumbs,  or  toes,  one-half  the  average  weekly  wages,  earn- 
ings, or  salary  of  the  injured  person,  but  not  more  than  $10 
nor  less  than  $4  a  week,  for  a  period  of  25  weeks,  (d)  For 
the  loss  by  severance  of  at  least  one  phalange  of  a  finger, 
thumb,  or  toe,  one-half  the  average  weekly  wages,  earn- 
ings, or  salary  of  the  injured  person,  but  not  more  than  $10 
nor  less  than  $4  a  week,  for  a  period  of  12  weeks. 
Texas. — A  special  schedule  is  provided  for  the  following  losses:  Loss 
of  both  hands,  both  feet,  one  hand  and  one  foot,  or  the 
reduction  to  1/10.  of  the  normal  vision  in  both  eyes,  60  per 
cent  of  the  average  weekly  wages,  subject  to  a  maximum 
of  $15  and  a  minimum  of  $5  per  week,  for  not  to  exceed  100 


90  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

weeks.  Loss  of  one  hand,  one  foot,  or  the  reduction  to  1/10 
of  the  normal  vision  of  one  eye,  60  per  cent  of  average  weekly 
wages,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $15  and  a  minimum  of  $5 
per  week,  for  not  to  exceed  50  weeks.  Loss  of  two  or  more 
fingers,  thumbs,  or  toes,  60  per  cent  of  the  average  weekly 
wages,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $15  and  a  minimum  of  $5 
per  week,  for  not  to  exceed  25  weeks.  Loss  of  at  least  one 
joint  of  a  finger,  thumb,  or  toe,  60  per  cent  of  the  average 
weekly  wages,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $15  and  a  mini- 
mum of  $5  per  week,  for  not  to  exceed  12  weeks. 

Washington. — The  only  provision  in  the  Washington  statute  that 
fixes  definite  amounts  for  specific  injuries  is  the  provision 
providing  that  for  any  permanent  partial  disability  which  is 
defined  elsewhere,  as  covering,  among  other  things,  loss  of 
either  foot,  leg,  hand,  arm,  eye,  fingers,  or  toes,  the  work- 
man shall  receive  in  a  lump  sum  the  amount  equal  to  the 
extent  of  the  injury,  to  be  stated  in  the  first  instance  by 
the  department,  but  not  in  any  case  to  exceed  the  sum  of 
$1,500;  and  the  loss  of  one  major  arm  at  or  above  the  elbow 
shall  be  deemed  a  maximum  permanent  partial  disability. 

West  Virginia. — If  the  partial  disability  consists  of  the  loss  of  an  arm 
or  a  leg,  at  or  above  the  wrist  in  the  one  case  and  the  ankle 
in  the  other,  or  the  loss  of  an  eye,  50  per  cent  of  the  im- 
pairment of  the  earning  capacity,  subject  to  a  maximum  of 
$8  per  week  and  a  minimum  of  $4  per  week,  payable  during 
a  period  not  exceeding  156  weeks. 

Wisconsin. — In  cases  included  by  the  following  schedule  the  compen- 
sation to  be  paid,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  act  for 
maximum  and  minimum  payments,  shall  be  65  per  cent  of 
the  average  weekly  earnings  of  the  employee  for  the  periods 
named  in  the  schedule,  to  wit:  The  loss  of  one  arm  at  or 
near  the  shoulder,  240  weeks;  the  loss  of  an  arm  at  the 
elbow,  200  weeks;  the  loss  of  a  forearm  at  the  lower  half 
thereof,  160  weeks;  the  loss  of  a  hand,  160  weeks;  the  loss 
of  a  palm  where  the  thumb  remains,  80  weeks;  the  loss  of  a 
thumb  and  the  metacarpal  bone  thereof,  60  weeks;  the  loss 
of  a  thumb  at  the  proximal  joint,  40  weeks;  the  loss  of  a 
thumb  at  the  second  or  distal  joint,  20  weeks;  the  loss  of  an 
index  finger  and  the  metacarpal  bone  thereof,  30  weeks;  the 
loss  of  an  index  finger  at  the  proximal  joint,  20  weeks;  the 
loss  of  an  index  finger  at  the  second  joint,  15  weeks;  the  loss 
of  an  index  finger  at  the  distal  joint,  10  weeks;  the  loss  of  a 
second  finger  and  the  metacarpal  bone  thereof,  20  weeks; 
the  loss  of  a  middle  finger  at  the  proximal  joint,  15  weeks; 
the  loss  of  a  middle  finger  at  the  second  joint,  10  weeks;  the 
loss  of  a  middle  finger  at  the  distal  joint,  5  weeks;  the  loss 
of  a  third  or  ring  finger  and  the  metacarpal  bone  thereof,  12 
weeks;  the  loss  of  a  ring  finger  at  the  proximal  joint,  8  weeks; 
the  loss  of  a  ring  finger  at  the  second  joint,  6  weeks;  the  loss 
of  a  ring  finger  at  the  distal  joint,  4  weeks;  the  loss  of  a  little 
finger  and  the  metacarpal  bone  thereof,  15  weeks;  the  loss 
of  a  little  finger  at  the  proximal  joint,  10  weeks;  the  loss  of  a 
little  finger  at  the  second  joint,  8  weeks;  the  loss  of  a  little 


DIGEST  OF  STATE  LAWS.  91 

finger  at  the  distal  joint,  4  weeks;  the  loss  of  all  the  fingers 
of  one  hand  where  the  thumb  and  palm  remain,  60  weeks; 
the  loss  of  a  leg  at  the  hip  joint,  or  so  near  thereto  as  to  pre- 
clude the  use  of  an  artificial  limb,  240  weeks;  the  loss  of  a 
leg  at  or  above  the  knee,  where  stump  remains  sufficient  to 
permit  the  use  of  an  artificial  limb,  160  weeks;  the  loss  of  a 
loot  at  the  ankle,  120  weeks;  the  loss  of  a  great  toe  with  ^he 
metatarsal  bone  thereof,  30  weeks;  the  loss  of  a  great  toe  at 
the  proximal  joint,  20  weeks;  the  loss  of  a  great  toe  at  the 
second  joint,  10  weeks;  the  loss  of  any  other  toe  with  the 
metatarsal  bone  thereof,  12  weeks;  the  loss  of  any  other  toe 
at  the  proximal  joint,  4  weeks;  the  loss  of  any  other  toe  at 
the  second  or  distal  joint,  4  weeks;  the  loss  of  all  the  toes  of 
one  foot,  40  weeks;  the  loss  of  an  eye  by  enucleation,  160 
weeks;  the  loss  of  the  second  eye  by  enucleation,  320  weeks; 
total  blindness  of  one  eye,  120  weeks;  total  blindness  of  the 
second  eye,  240  weeks;  total  deafness  of  both  ears,  160 
weeks;  total  deafness  of  one  ear,  40  weeks;  total  deafness 
of  the  second  ear,  120  weeks. 

When  by  reason  of  infection  or  other  cause  not  due  to  the 
neglect  or  misconduct  of  the  injured  employee  he  is  actually 
disabled  longer  than  the  time  specified  in  the  foregoing 
schedule  from  earning  a  wage,  compensation  shall  be  paid 
such  employee  for  such  loss  of  wage  within  the  limits  other- 
wise provided. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  schedule  permanent  and  complete 
paralysis  of  any  member  shall  be  deemed  equivalent  to  the 
loss  thereof. 

Whenever  an  amputation  is  made  between  any  two  joints 
mentioned  in  this  schedule  (except  amputations  between  the 
knee  and  hip  joint)  the  resultant  loss  shall  be  estimated  as 
if  the  amputation  had  been  made  at  the  joint  nearest  thereto. 

Comparative  statement  upon  maximum  for  loss  of  arm. 

Arizona,  50  per  cent  wage  impairment  up  to  $4,000. 

Connecticut,  $2,080. 

Illinois,  $2,400. 

Iowa,  $2,000. 

Kansas,  50  per  cent  wage  impairment  eight  ytars. 

Massachusetts,  50  per  cent  wage  impairment  300  weeks,  and  not  exceeding 

$500  additional. 
Michigan,  $2,000. 
Minnesota,  $2,000. 
Nebraska,  $2,150. 
Nevada,  $3,000. 

New  York  (compulsory  act),  $6,240. 
New  Jersey,  $2,000. 
New  Hampshire,  $3,000. 
Ohio,  $2,400. 
Oregon,  $2,400. 
Rhode  Island,  50  per  cent  wage  impairment  300  weeks,  and  not  exceeding 

$500  additional. 
Texas,  50  per  cent  wage  impairment  300  weeks,  and  not  exceeding  $750 

additional. 
Washington,  $1,500. 
Wisconsin,  $3,000. 
WTest  Virginia,  $1,456. 


92  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

DEATH  BENEFITS. 

Arizona. — When  the  death  of  the  workman  results  from  accident 
within  six  months  thereafter,  and  he  leaves  at  the  time  of  his 
death  a  widow  and  a  minor  child  or  children  dependents,  a 
sum  equal  to  two  thousand  four  hundred  times  one-half 
the  daily  wages  or  earnings  of  the  deceased;  subject  to  a 
maximum  of  $4,000,  such  sum  to  be  paid  in  lump  and  held 
in  trust  by  the  personal  representatives  of  the  deceased 
workman  lor  such  widow  and  children,  and  applied  to  the 
support  of  the  widow  while  she  remains  unmarried,  and  to 
the  support  and  education  of  the  children  so  long  as  neces- 
sary and  until  18  years  of  age.  If  the  workman  leaves  no 
widow  or  child  or  children,  but  a  father,  or  mother,  or  sister 
dependent,  then  said  sum  shall  be  for  their  benefit;  if  no 
dependents,  then  reasonable  expenses  of  medical  attendance 
and  burial. 

California. — Compensation  for  death  is  payable  in  installments  equal 
to  65  per  cent  of  the  average  weekly  earnings  of  the  deceased 
employee,  as  follows:  (1)  If  there  are  total  dependents,  a 
sum  sufficient,  when  added  to  the  disability  indemnity 
accrued  and  payable  at  the  time  of  death,  to  make  the  total 
disability  indemnity  and  death  benefit  equal  to  three  times 
the  average  annual  earnings,  such  annual  earnings  to  be 
taken  at  not  less  than  $333.33  nor  more  than  $1,666.66;  (2) 
if  there  be  no  total  dependents  but  only  partial  dependents, 
such  percentage  of  three  times  such  average  annual  earnings 
of  the  deceased  as  the  annual  amount  devoted  by  him  to  the 
support  of  the  partial  dependents  bears  to  such  average 
annual  earnings;  but  such  sum,  when  added  to  the  disa- 
bility indemnity  accrued  and  payalle  at  the  time  of  death 
must  not  exceed  three  times  the  average  annual  earnings, 
such  earnings  to  be  taken  at  not  less  than  $333.33  nor  more 
than  $1,666.66;  (3)  if  there  are  no  dependents,  reasonable 
burial  expenses  not  exceeding  $100  in  amount. 

Connecticut. — All  death  compensation  is  subject  to  a  maximum  of 
$10  and  a  minimum  of  $5  per  week,  and  a  maximum  period 
of  312  weeks. 

Compensation  shall  be  paid  on  account  of  death  resulting 
from  injuries  within  two  years  from  date  of  injury  as  follows: 
(a)  Foi  burial  expenses  $100;  (6)  to  those  totally  dependent 
upon  the  deceased  employee  at  the  time  of  his  injury  a 
weekly  compensation  equal  to  half  of  the  average  weekly 
earnings  of  the  deceased  at  the  time  of  his  injury;  (c)  in  case 
there  is  no  one  totally  dependent  upon  the  deceased  em- 
ployee then  to  those  partially  dependent  upon  the  deceased 
employee  at  the  time  of  his  injury  a  weekly  compensation 
not  exceeding  that  payable  to  total  dependents  and  of  such 
proportionate  sum  as  may  be  determined  according  to  the 
measure  of  dependence;  (d)  in  case  there  are  no  dependents 
of  the  deceased  employee  the  sum  of  $750,  to  be  paid  to  the 
State  treasurer  and  by  him  set  apart  as  a  fund  to  be  used  for 
the  payment  of  lawful  expenses  of  the  commissioners;  but 
the  compensation  payable  on  account  of  death  resulting  from 


DIGEST  OF  STATE  LAWS.  93 

injuries  shall  in  no  case  be  more  than  $10  or  less  than  $5 
weekly,  and  such  compensation  shall  not  continue  longer 
than  312  weeks  after  death.  The  compensation  on  account 
of  death  payable  under  this  act  to  a  widow  or  widower  of  a 
deceased  employee  shall  not  cease  with  the  death  of  such 
widow  or  widower,  but  upon  her  or  his  death  within  the 
period  during  which  such  compensation  is  payable  it  shall 
continue  to  be  paid  for  the  remainder  of  such  period  to  her 
or  his  dependents  as  defined  in  section  43. 
Illinois. — Death  compensation  shall  be  in  amount  and  as  follows: 

(a)  If  employee  leaves  widow,  child  or  children  whom  he 
was  under  legal  obligation  to  support,  a  sum  equal  to  four 
times  his  average  annual  earnings,  but  not  less  than  $1,500 
nor  more  than  $3,500. 

(6)  If  no  amount  is  payable  under  paragraph  (a),  then  to 
a  widow,  child,  parent,  grandparent,  or  other  lineal  heirs  to 
whose  support  he  had  contributed  within  four  years  previous 
to  the  injury,  a  sum  equal  to  four  times  his  average  annual 
earnings,  but  not  less  than  $1,500  nor  more  than  $3,500. 

(c)  If  no  amount  payable  under  paragraph   (a)  or   (6), 
then  to  dependent  collateral  heirs,  such  a  percentage  of  the 
sum  provided  in  paragraph  (a)  as  the  average  annual  con- 
tribution made  by  deceased  to  the  support  of  such  dependent 
collateral  heirs  during  the  two  years  preceding  the  injury 
bears  to  such  earnings. 

(d)  If  no  amount  payable  under  paragraph  (a)  or  (6)  or 
(c),  then  for  burial  expenses  a  sum  not  to  exceed  $150. 

Iowa. — To  those  wholly  dependent  on  the  decedent  for  support  at  the 
time  of  injury,  a  payment  equal  to  50  per  cent  of  his  average 
weekly  wages;  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $10  per  week  and 
a  minimum  of  $5  per  week,  for  a  period  of  300  weeks. 

To  partial  dependents  a  weekly  compensation  equal  to 
the  same  proportion  of  the  weekly  benefits  for  the  benefit  of 
persons  wholly  dependent,  as  the  amount  contributed  by 
the  employee  to  such  partial  dependents  bear  to  the  actual 
earnings  of  the  deceased  at  the  time  of  injury;  maximum 
period,  300  weeks. 

Where  injury  causes  death  to  an  employee,  a  minor,  whose 
earnings  were  received  by  the  parents,  the  compensation 
paid  to  the  parents  shall  be  two-thirds  of  the  amount  pro- 
vided for  payment  to  dependents. 
Kansas. — Death  compensation  shall  be  as  follows: 

(a).  To  those  wholly  dependent,  a  sum  equal  to  three 
times  the  earnings  of  the  deceased  workman  for  the  preced- 
ing year,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $3,600  and  a  minimum 
of  $1,200,  such  earnings  to'  be  computed  upon  the  basis  of 
wages  during  the  30  days  next  preceding  the  accident;  but 
if  no  dependents  who  are  citizens  of  and  residing  in  the 
United  States  or  Canada,  the  compensation  shall  not 
exceed  $750. 

(b)  If  no  one  wholly  dependent,  then  to  partial  depen- 
dents such  proportion  of  the  foregoing  amounts  as  may  be 
agreed   upon   or   determined    to   be   proportionate   to   the 
injury  to  said  dependents. 


94  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

(c)  If  no  dependents,  the  reasonable  expenses  of  medical 
attendance  and  burial,  not  to  exceed  $100. 

Maryland. — To  those  wholly  dependent  at  the  time  of  the  decedent's 
death,  a  sum  equal  to  his  wages  during  the  previous  three 
years,  but  not  less  than  $1,000. 

Massachusetts. — To  persons  wholly  dependent,  weekly  payment  equal 
to  one-half  average  weekly  wages;  maximum  $10,  minimum 
$4,  for  a  period  of  300  weeks  from  the  date  of  injury. 

To  partial  dependents,  payments  shall  be  equal  to  that 
proportion  of  the  weekly  payments  for  the  benefit  of  persons 
wholly  dependent  as  the  amount  contributed  by  the  employee 
bears  to  the  annual  earnings  of  the  deceased  at  the  time  of 
his  injury.  Where  weekly  payments  have  been  made  to  an 
injured  employee  before  his  death,  the  combined  payments 
of  the  injured  person  and  his  dependents  shall  not  exceed 
300  weeks  from  the  date  of  injury. 

Michigan. — To  persons  wholly  dependent,  weekly  payment  equal  to 
one-half  weekly  wages — maximum  $10  and  minimum  $4  a 
week — for  a  period  of  300  weeks. 

To  partial  dependents,  a  weekly  amount  equal  to  the  same 
proportion  of  the  amounts  payable  to  persons  wholly  depend- 
ent as  the  amount  contributed  by  the  employee  to  such  par- 
tial dependents  bears  to  the  annual  earnings  of  the  deceased 
at  time  of  injury. 

Where  death  follows  period  of  disability,  dependents  to 
receive  difference  between  what  they  would  have  received 
had  the  accident  resulted  in  immediate  death  and  the  amount 
that  the  deceased  has  already  received  as  compensation  be- 
fore in  weekly  installments. 

Minnesota. — In  case  of  death  compensation  shall  be  subject  to  maxi- 
mum of  $10  and  minimum  of  $6  per  week,  except  where 
weekly  wage  is  less  than  $6,  then  full  wages.  Maximum 
period  of  300  weeks.  Such  compensation  payable  to  depend- 
ents shall  be  distributed  according  to  law  and  shall  be  com- 
puted on  the  following  basis:  Widow  alone,  35  per  cent  of 
monthly  wages;  widow  and  one  dependent  child,  40  per  cent 
of  monthly  wages;  widow  and  two  or  three  dependent  chil- 
dren, 50  per  cent  of  monthly  wages;  widow  and  four  or  more 
dependent  children,  60  per  cent  of  monthly  wages;  depend- 
ent orphan,  40  per  cent  of  monthly  wages,  10  per  cent  addi- 
tional for  each  orphan  in  excess  of  two — maximum  60  per 
cent;  dependent  husband  alone,  25  per  cent  of  monthly 
wages;  dependent  parent  or  parents  alone,  25  per  cent  of 
monthly  wages  if  one,  35  per  cent  of  monthly  wages  if  two; 
dependent  brother,  sister,  or  grandparent  alone,  25  per  cent 
of  monthly  wages  if  one,  30  per  cent  of  monthly  wages  if 
more  than  one. 

Partial  dependents  are  entitled  to  receive  that  proportion 
of  the  benefits  provided  for  actual  dependents  which  the  aver- 
age amount  of  the  weekly  contribution  of  the  deceased  bore 
to  the  total  wages  of  deceased.  If  there  are  no  dependents, 
compensation  payable  shall  be  the  expenses  of  last  sickness 
and  burial,  with  maximum  of  $100,  in  addition  to  the  regular 
medical  and  hospital  services. 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  95 

Nebraska. — To  persons  wholly  dependent,  50  per  cent  of  the  wages 
received  at  the  time  of  injury,  with  a  maximum  of  $10  per 
week  and  a  minimum  of  $5  per  week,  with  a  proviso  that 
if  at  the  time  of  injury  the  employee  receives  wages  of  less 
than  $5  per  week  then  the  compensation  shall  be  the  full 
amount  of  such  wages  per  week.  This  compensation  shall 
be  paid  during  dependency,  not  exceeding  350  weeks  from 
the  date  of  the  accident  causing  the  injury. 

To  partial  dependents  the  compensation  shall  be  the  same 
proportion  of  the  benefits  provided  in  case  of  total  depend- 
ency as  the  average  amount  of  the  wages  regularly  contrib- 
uted by  the  deceased  to  such  partial  dependents,  at  and 
for  a  reasonable  time  immediately  prior  to  the  injury,  to  the 
total  wages  of  the  deceased  during  the  same  time. 

Nevada. — An  amount  equivalent  to  50  per  cent  of  the  decedent's  aver- 
age monthly  earnings,  but  not  less  than  $20  nor  more  than 
$60  per  month,  for  a  period  of  100  months,  with  a  maximum 
amount  of  $5,000. 

New  Hampshire. — If  total  dependents,  150  times  average  weekly  wage 
less  any  weekly  payments  made — maximum,  $3,000.  If  par- 
tial dependents,  such  percentage  of  above  as  amount  contrib- 
uted by  deceased  to  such  partial  dependents  bore  to  total 
wages  of  deceased. 

New  Jersey. — Compensation  in  case  of  death  subject  to  a  maximum 
of  $10  per  week  and  a  minimum  of  $5  per  week,  excent 
where  weekly  wage  less  than  $5,  then  full  wages.  Maxi- 
mum period,  300  weeks. 

Such  compensation  is  computed,  but  not  distributed,  on 
the  following  basis: 

Actual  dependents:  For  one  dependent,  35  per  cent  of 
wages;  for  two  dependents,  40  per  cent  of  wages;  for  three 
dependents,  45  per  cent  of  wages;  for  four  dependents,  50 
percent  of  wages;  for  five  dependents,  55  per  cent  of  wages; 
for  six  dependents,  60  per  cent  of  wages. 

Compensation  shall  be  distributed  among  dependents,  if 
more  than  one,  according  to  the  order  of  the  judge  of  the 
court  of  common  pleas.  Where  there  are  no  dependents 
the  only  compensation  shall  be  expenses  of  last  sickness 
and  burial,  with  a  maximum  of  $100  for  cost  of  burial. 

New  York. — If  there  be  a  surviving  wife  (or  dependent  husband) 
and  no  child  of  the  deceased  under  the  age  of  18  years,  to 
such  wife  (or  dependent  husband)  30  per  cent  of  the  average 
wages  of  the  deceased  during  widowhood  (or  dependent 
widowerhood),  with  two  years'  compensation  in  one  sum, 
upon  remarriage ;  and  if  there  be  surviving  child  or  children 
of  the  deceased  under  the  age  of  18  years,  the  additional 
amount  of  10  per  cent  of  such  wages  for  each  such  child 
until  of  the  age  of  18  years,  provided  that  the  total  amount 
payable  shall  in  no  case  exceed  66§  per  cent  of  such  wages. 
If  there  be  surviving  child  or  children  of  the  deceased 
under  the  age  of  18  years,  but  no  surviving  wife  (or  depend- 
ent husband),  then  for  the  support  of  each  such  child  until 
of  the  age  of  18  years,  15  per  cent  of  the  wages  of  the  de- 
ceased, provided  that  the  aggregate  shall  in  no  case  exceed 
66§  per  cent  of  such  wages. 


96  WORKMEN 'S    COMPENSATION. 

If  the  amount  payable  to  surviving  wife  (or  dependent 
husband)  and  to  children  under  the  age  of  18  years  shall  be 
less  in  the  aggregate  than  66§  per  cent  of  the  average  wages 
of  the  deceased,  then  for  the  support  of  grandchildren  or 
brothers  and  sisters  under  the  age  of  18  years,  if  dependent 
upon  the  deceased  at  the  time  of  the  accident,  15  per  cent 
of  such  wages  for  the  support  of  each  such  person  until  of 
the  age  of  18  years;  and  for  the  support  of  each  parent  or 
grandparent  of  the  deceased,  if  dependent  upon  him  at  the 
time  of  the  accident,  15  per  cent  of  such  wages  during  such 
dependency.  But  in  no  case  shall  the  aggregate  amount 
payable  under  this  subdivision  exceed  the  difference  be- 
tween 66 §  per  cent  of  such  wages,  and  the  amount  payable 
as  hereinbefore  provided  to  surviving  wife  (or  dependent 
husband)  or  for  the  support  of  surviving  child  or  children. 

Any  excess  of  wages  over  $100  a  month  shall  not  be  taken 
into  account  in  computing  compensation  under  this  section. 
All  questions  of  dependency  shall  be  determined  as  of  the 
time  of  the  accident. 

Ohio. — In  all  death  cases,  reasonable  funeral  expenses  shall  be  paid, 
subject  to  a  maximum  of  $150,  in  addition  to  any  other 
award. 

Where  the  injury  causes  death  within  two  }^ears  the 
benefits  shall  be  in  the  amounts  and  to  the  persons  follow- 
ing: (a)  If  no  dependents,  funeral  expenses  only,  (b)  If 
there  are  wholly  dependent  persons  at  the  time  of  death, 
66|  per  cent  average  weekly  wage,  to  continue  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  period  between  the  date  of  death  and  six 
years  after  the  date  of  injury,  subject  to  a  maximum  of 
$3,750  and  a  minimum  of  $1,500.  (c)  If  there  are  partly 
dependent  persons  at  the  time  of  death,  66§  per  cent  average 
weekly  wage,  to  continue  for  all  or  such  portion  of  the  period 
of  six  years  after  the  date  of  the  injury  as  the  board  in  each 
case  may  determine,  subject  to  a  maximum  of  $3,750. 
Oregon. — (1)  If  the  workman  leaves  a  widow  or  invalid  widower,  a 
monthly  payment  of  $30  shall  be  paid  throughout  the  life 
of  the  surviving  spouse,  to  cease  at  the  end  of  the  month  in 
which  remarriage  shall  occur;  and  the  surviving  spouse 
shall  also  receive  $6  per  month  for  each  child  of  the  de- 
ceased under  the  age  of  16  years  at  the  time  of  the  occurrence 
of  the  injury  until  such  minor  shall  reach  the  age  of  16  years, 
but  the  total  monthly  payment  under  this  paragraph  (1) 
shall  not  exceed  $50.  Upon  remarriage  of  a  widow  she 
shall  receive  once  for  all  a  lump  sum  equal  to  ten  times  her 
monthly  allowance,  viz:  The  sum  of  $300,  but  the  monthly 
payments  for  the  child  or  children  shall  continue  as  before. 

(2)  If  the  workman  leaves  no  wife  or  husband  but  a  child 
or  children  under  the  age  of  16  years,  a  monthly  payment  of 
$15  shall  be  made  to  each  child  until  such  child  shall  reacli 
the  age  of  16  years,  provided,  however,  that  if  any  child  is 
under  the  age  of  16  years  and  over  the  age  of  15  years,  he 
shall  be  entitled  to  recover  such  payments  for  a  period  of 
one  year,  but  the  total  monthly  payment  shall  not  exceed 
$50,  and  any  deficit  shall  be  deducted  proportionately 
among  the  beneficiaries. 


DIGEST   OF    STATE   LAWS.  97 

(3)  If  the  workman  leaves  no  widow,  widower,  or  child 
under  the  age  of  16  years,  but  leaves  a  dependent  or  depen- 
dents, a  monthly  payment  shall  be  made  to  each  dependent 
equal  to  50  per  cent  of  the  average  monthly  support  actually 
received  by  such  dependent  from  the  workman  during  the 
12  months  next  preceding  the  occurrence  of  the  injury,  but 
the  total  payment  to  all  dependents  in  any  case,  shall  not 
exceed  $30  per  month.     If  any  dependent  is  under  the  age 
of  16  years  at  the  time  of  the  occurrence  of  the  injury,  the 
payment  to  such  dependent  shall  cease  when  such  depen- 
dent shall  reach  the  age  of  16  years,  excepting  a  daughter, 
the  payment  to  whom  shall  cease  when  she  shall  have 

Breached  the  age  of  18  years;  provided,  however,  that  if 
any  child  is  under  the  age  of  16  years  and  over  the  age  of 
15  years,  he  shall  be  entitled  to  recover  such  payments  for 
a  period  of  one  year.  The  payment  to  any  dependent  shall 
cease  if,  and  when,  under  the  same  circumstances,  the 
necessity  creating  the  dependency  would  have  ceased  if  the 
injury  had  not  happened. 

If  the  workman  is  under  the  age  of  21  years  and  unmar- 
ried at  the  tune  of  his  death,  the  parents  or  parent  of  the 
workman  shall  receive  $25  per  month  for  each  month  after 
his  death  until  the  time  at  which  he  would  have  arrived  at 
the  age  of  21  years;  provided,  however,  that  such  parents 
shall  be  entitled  thereafter  to  compensation  as  dependents 
under  the  provisions  of  the  first  clause  of  this  paragraph 
three. 

(4)  In  the  event  a  surviving  spouse  receiving  monthly 
payments  shall  die  leaving  a  child  or  children  under  the  age 
of  16  years,  the  sum  he  or  she  shall  be  receiving  on  account 
of  such  child  or  children  shall  thereafter,  until  such  child 
shall  arrive  at  the  age  of  16  years,  be  paid  to  the  child  in- 
creased to  $15  per  month;  provided,  however,  that  if  any 
such  child  is  under  the  age  of  16  years  and  over  the  age  of 
15  years  he  shall  be  entitled  to  recover  such  payments  for  a 
period  of  one  year,  but  the  total  to  all  children  shall  not 
exceed  the  sum  of  $50  per  month. 

Khode  Island. — To  persons  wholly  dependent,  weekly  payment  equal 
to  one-half  average  weekly  wages,  earnings,  or  salary; 
maximum,  $10;  minimum,  $4,  for  a  period  of  300  weeks. 
If  dependent  is  the  widow  of  employee,  upon  her  death,  the 
compensation  thereafter  payable  under  the  act,  shall  be 
paid  to  the  child  or  children  of  the  deceased  employee,  in- 
cluding adopted  and  stepchildren  under  the  age  of  18  years, 
or  over  that  age  if  they  are  physically  or  mentally  incapaci- 
tated from  earning,  dependent  upon  the  widow  at  the  time 
of  her  death.  If  more  than  one  child,  the  compensation  to 
be  equally  divided. 

Partiaf  dependents  shall  receive  a  weekly  payment  equal 
to  the  same  proportion  of  the  weekly  payments  provided 
for  tke  benefit  of  persons  wholly  dependent  as  the  amount 
contributed  annually  by  the  employee  to  such  partial  de- 
pendents bears  to  the  annual  earnings  of  the  deceased  at 
the  time  of  injury,  for  a  period  of  300  weeks r 
30003— S.  Poc.  419,  63-2 7 


98  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

When  weekly  payments  have  been  made  an  injured  em- 
ployee before  liis  death,  the  compensation  to  dependents 
shall  begin  from  the  date  of  the  last  of  such  payments,  but 
shall  not  continue  for  more  than  300  weeks  from  the  date 
of  the  injury. 

Texas.  —Compensation  for  death  is  60  per  cent  average  weekly  wages, 
subject  to  maximum  of  $15  and  a  minimum  of  $5  per  week, 
for  not  more  than  360  weeks,  such  compensation  to  be  dis- 
tributed according  to  the  laws  governing  the  distribution  of 
other  property  of  deceased  persons.  If  deceased  employee 
leaves  no  legal  beneficiaries  or  creditors,  the  expenses  of  last 
sickness  or  Burial,  not  to  exceed  $100,  shall  be  paid.  If  de- 
ceased leaves  no  beneficiaries,  but  leaves  creditors,  the 
association  shall  be  liable  to  such  creditors  for  an  amount 
not  exceeding  the  amount  that  otherwise  would  have  been 
due  beneficiaries. 

Washington. — Where  death  results  from  the  injury  the  expenses  of 
burial  shall  be  paid  in  all  cases,  not  to  exceed  $75  in  any 
case,  and 

(1)  If  the  workman  leaves  a  widow  or  invalid  widower,  a 
monthly  payment  of  $20  shall  be  made  throughout  the  life 
of  the  surviving  spouse,  to  cease  at  the  end  of  the  month  in 
which  remarriage  shall  occur;  and  the  surviving  spouse  shall 
also  receive  $5  per  month  for  each  child  of  the  deceased 
under  the  age  of  16  years  at  time  of  the  occurrence  of  the 
injury  until  such  minor  child  shall  reach  the  age  of  16  years, 
but  the  total  monthly  payment  under  this  paragraph  (1) 
of  subdivision  (a)  shall  not  exceed  $35.     Upon  remarriage 
of  a  widow  she  shall  receive,  once  and  for  all,  a  lump  sum 
equal  to  12  times  her  monthly  allowance,  viz,  the  sum  of 
$240,  but  the  monthly  payment  for  the  child  or  children 
shall  continue  as  before. 

(2)  If  the  workman  leaves  no  wife  or  husband,  but  a  child 
or  children  under  the  age  of  16  years,  a  monthly  payment 
of  $10  shall  be  made  to  each  such  child  until  such  child  shall 
reach  the  age  of  16  years,  but  the  total  monthly  payment 
shall  not  exceed  $35,  and  any  deficit  shall  be  deducted  pro- 
portionately among  the  beneficiaries. 

(3)  If  the  workman  leaves  no  widow,  widower,  or  child 
under  the  age  of  16  years,  but  leaves  a  dependent  or  depend- 
ents, a  monthly  payment  shall  be  made  to  each  dependent 
equal  to  50  per  cent  of  the  average  monthly  support  actually 
received  by  such  dependent  from  the  workman  during  the 
12  months  next  preceding  the  occurrence  of  the  injury,  but 
the  toal  payment  to  all  dependents  in  any  case  shall  not 
exceed  $20  per  month.     If  any  dependent  is  under  the  age 
of  16  years  at  the  time  of  the  occurrence  of  the  injury,  the 
payment  to  such  dependent  shall  cease  when  such  depend 3nt 
shall  reach  the  age  of  16  years.     The  payment  to  any  de- 
pendent shall  cease  if  and  when,  under  the  same  circum- 
stances, the  necessity  creating  the  dependency  would  have 
ceased  if  the  injury  had  not  happened. 

If  the  workman  is  under  the  age  of  21  years  and  unmar- 
ried at  the  time  of  his  death,  the  parents  or  parent  of  the 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  99 

workman  shall  receive  $20  per  month  for  each  month  after 
his  death  until  the  time  at  which  he  would  have  arrived  at 
the  age  of  21  years. 

(4)  In  the  event  a  surviving  spouse  receiving  monthly 
payments  shall  die,  leaving  a  child  or  children  under  the  age 
of  16  years,  the  sum  he  or  she  shall  be  receiving  on  account 
of  such  child  or  children  shall  be  thereafter,  until  such  child 
shall  arrive  at  the  age  of  16  years,  paid  to  the  child  in- 
creased 100  per  cent,  but  the  total  to  all  children  shall  not 
exceed  the  sum  of  $35  per  month. 

West  Virginia. — In  all  death  cases  reasonable  funeral  expenses,  not 
exceeding  $75,  shall  be  paid  in  addition  to  any  other  award. 

If  an  injury  causes  death  within  90  days,  benefits  shall  be 
in  amounts  and  to  the  persons  following : 

(a)  Dependent  farther  or  mother  of  deceased  employee 
who  was  a  minor  and  unmarried  is  entitled  to  50  per  cent  of 
weekly  wage,  not  exceeding  $6  per  week,  to  continue  until 
the  employee  would  have  been  21  years  of  age. 

(&)  Widow  or  invalid  widower  of  deceased  employee  is 
entitled  to  $20  a  month  until  the  death  or  remarriage  of  such 
widow  or  widower;  additional  $5  per  month  for  each  child 
under  the  age  of  lawful  employment,  to  be  paid  until  such 
child  reaches  lawful  age,  total  payment  not  to  exceed  $35 
per  month. 

(c)  If  there  be  wholly  dependent  persons  other  than  widow, 
widower,  or  child,  the  payment  shall  be  50  per  cent  of  the 
average  monthly  support  actually  received  from  the  employee 
during  the  preceding  12  months,   to  continue  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  period  between  the  date  of  death  and  six 
years  after  the  date  of  injury,  with  a  maximum  of  $20  per 
month. 

(d]  Partially  dependent  persons  are  entitled  to  50  per  cent 
of  the  average  monthly  support  actually  received  during  the 
preceding  12  months,  to  continue  for  such  portion  of  the 
period  of  six  years  after  the  date  of  injury  as  the  commission 
may  determine,  with  a  maximum  of  $20  per  month. 

All  payments  of  benefits  in  death  cases  made  according  to 
the  determination  of  the  commission. 

Wisconsin. — Where  death  proximately  results  from  the  injury  and  the 
deceased  leaves  a  person  or  persons  wholly  dependent  upon 
him  for  support,  the  death  benefit  shall  be  as  follows: 

In  case  the  injured  employee  was  permanently  totally  dis- 
abled, a  sum  equal  to  four  tunes  his  average  annual  earnings, 
but  which,  when  added  to  the  disability  indemnity  paid  and 
due  at  the  tune  of  death,  shall  not  exceed  six  times  his 
average  annual  earnings. 

In  case  the  injured  employee  was  not  permanently  totally 
disabled,  such  sum  which,  when  added  to  the  disability 
indemnity  paid  and  due  at  the  time  of  his  death,  shall  equal 
four  times  his  average  annual  earnings. 

If  death  occurs  to  an  injured  employee  other  than  as  a 
proximate  result  of  the  accident,  before  disability  indemnity 
ceases,  death  benefit  shall  be  as  follows: 


100  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Where  the  accident  proximately  causes  permanent  total 
disability,  it  shall  be  the  same  as  if  the  accident  had  caused 
death. 

Where  the  accident  proximately  causes  permanent  partial 
disability,  liability  shall  exist  for  such  benefit  as  shall  fairly 
represent  the  proportionate  extent  of  the  impairment  of 
earning  capacity  in  the  employment  in  which  the  deceased 
was  working  at  the  time  of  the  accident,  or  other  suitable 
employment,  caused  by  such  disability. 

In  case  the  deceased  employee  leaves  no  one  wholly  de- 
pendent upon  him  for  support,  but  one  or  more  persons 
partially  dependent  therefor,  the  death  benefit  shall  not 
exceed  four  times  the  amount  devoted  by  deceased,  during 
the  year  immediately  preceding  his  death,  to  the  support 
of  such  dependents  and  shall  be  apportioned  according  to  the 
percentage  that  the  amount  devoted  by  the  deceased  to  the 
support  of  such  person  or  persons,  for  the  year  immediately 
prior  to  the  accident,  bears  to  the  average  annual  earnings 
of  the  deceased. 

Death  benefit  shall  be  paid  in  weekly  installments  corres- 
ponding in  amount  to  65  per  cent  of  the  weekly  earnings 
of  the  employee,  until  otherwise  ordered  by  the  commission. 

WHO   ARE   DEPENDENTS. 

Arizona. — Widow,  and  a  minor  child,  or  children,  depending  on  the 
workman's    earnings    for    support    and    education,    father, 
mother,  or  sister,  dependent  on  him  for  support. 
California. — The   following  shall   be   conclusively   presumed    to    be 
wholly  dependent  for  support  upon  a  deceased  employee: 

A  wife  upon  a  husband  with  whom  she  was  living  at  the 
time  of  his  death. 

A  husband  upon  a  wife  upon  whose  earnings  he  is  par- 
tially or  wholly  dependent  at  the  time  of  her  death. 

A  child  or  children  under  the  age  of  18  years  (or  over 
said  ag3,  but  physically  or  mentally  incapacitated  from 
earning)  upon  the  parent  with  whom  he  or  or  they  are  living 
at  the  time  of  the  death  of  such  parent  or  for  whose  main- 
tenance such  parent  was  legally  liable  at  the  time  of  his 
death,  there  being  no  surviving  dependent  parent. 

In  all  other  cases,  questions  of  entire  or  partial  depend- 
ency and  questions  as  to  who  constitute  dependents  and  the 
extent  of  their  dependency  shall  be  determined  in  accord- 
ance with  the  fact,  as  the  fact  may  be  at  the  time  of  the 
death  of  the  employee. 

No  person  shall  be  considered  a  dependent  of  any  deceased 
employee  unless  a  member  of  the  family  of  such  employee 
or  unless  such  person  bears  to  such  employee  the  relation  of 
husband  or  wife,  child,  adopted  child  or  stepchild,  father  or 
mother,  father-in-law  or  mother-in-law,  grandfather  or 
grandmother,  brother  or  sister,  nephew  or  niece. 

If  there  is  one  or  more  persons  wholly  dependent  for 
support  upon  a  deceased  employee,  such  person  or  persons 
shall  receive  the  entire  death  benefit,  and  any  person  or 


DIGEST   OF   STATE    I-A.WS.  101 

persons  partially  dependent  shall  receive  no  part  thereof, 
unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  commission. 

If  there  is  more  than  one  such  person  wholly  dependent 
for  support  upon  a  deceased  employee,  the  death  benefit 
shall  be  divided  equally  among  them,  unless  otherwise  or- 
dered by  the  commission. 

If  there  is  more  than  one  person  partially  dependent  for 
support  upon  a  deceased  employee,  and  no  person  wholly 
dependent  for  support,  the  amount  allowed  as  the  death 
benefit  shall  be  divided  among  the  persons  so  partially  de- 
pendent in  proportion  to  the  relative  extent  of  their  de- 
pendency, unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  commission. 

Connecticut. — Meaning  of  dependence.  The  following  persons  are 
conclusively  presumed  to  be  totally  dependent  for  support 
upon  a  deceased  employee:  (a)  A  wife  upon  a  husband  with 
whom  she  lives  at  the  time  of  his  injury  or  from  whom  she 
receives  support  regularly;  (b)  a  husband  upon  a  wife  with 
whom  he  lives  at  the  time  of  her  injurv  or  from  whom  he 
receives  support  regularly;  (c)  a  child  or  children  under 
the  age  of  18  years,  or  over  said  age  but  physically  or  men- 
tally incapacitated  from  earning,  upon  the  parent  with 
whom  he  is  or  they  are  living  or  from  whom  he  is  or  they 
are  receiving  support  regularly  at  the  time  of  the  injury  of 
such  parent,  there  being  no  surviving  dependent  parent. 

Illinois. — Widow,  child,  or  children,  whom  the  decedent  was  under 
legal  obligations  to  support  at  the  time  of  his  injury.  Any 
widow,  child,  parent,  grandparent,  or  other  lineal  heir  to 
whose  support  the  decedent  had  contributed  within  four 
years  previous  to  the  time  of  his  injury.  In  the  absence  of 
any  oi  the  above-described  dependents  collateral  heirs  de- 
pendent at  the  time  of  injury  upon  the  decedent's  earnings. 

Iowa. — The  following  conclusively  presumed  to  be  wholly  dependent : 
The  surviving  spouse,  unless  it  be  shown  that  the  survivor 
willfully  deserted  without  fault  upon  the  decedent's  part; 
a  child  or  children  under  16  years  of  age;  over  that  age  if 
physically  or  mentally  incapacitated  from  earning,  whether 
actually  dependent  for  support  or  not;  a  parent  of  a  minor 
entitled  to  his  or  her  earnings  at  the  time  of  the  injury.  In 
all  other  questions  dependence  in  whole  or  in  part  to  be  de- 
termined in  accordance  with  the  fact  as  the  fact  may  be  at 
the  time  of  injury.  Step-parents  are  regarded  as  parents, 
and  adopted  children  or  stepchildren  are  regarded  the  same 
as  if  issue  of  the  body. 

Kansas. — Such  members  of  tlie  workman's  family  as  were  wholly  or 
in  part  dependent  at  the  time  of  the  accident.  "Members 
of  a  family  means  only  widow  or  husband,  as  the  case  may 
be,  and  children;  or,  if  no  widow,  husband,  or  children,  then 
parents  and  grandparents;  or,  if  no  parents  or  grandparents, 
then  grandchildren;  or,  if  no  grandchildren,  then  brothers 
and  sisters."  The  word  " parents"  includes  step-parents, 
the  word  " children"  includes  stepchildren,  the  word  "grand- 
children" include  step-grandchildren,  the  words  "brothers" 
and  "sisters"  include  stepbrothers  and  stepsisters,  and  the 
words  "parents"  and  "children"  include  that  relation  by 
legal  adoption. 


102  WORKEN  'S    COMPENSATION. 


.  —  Subject  to  contract. 
Massachusetts.  —  The  following  persons  shall  be  conclusively  presumed 
to  be  wholly  dependent: 

A  wifs  upon  a  husband  with  whom  she  lives  at  the  time 
of  his  death;  a  husband  upon  a  wife  with  whom  he  lives  at 
the  time  of  her  death;  a  child  or  children  under  the  age  of 
18  (or  over  said  age,  but  physically  or  mentally  incapaci- 
tated from  earning)  upon  the'parent  with  whom  it  is  living 
at  the  time  of  the  death  of  such  parent,  there  being  no 
surviving  dependent  parent. 

In  case  there  is  more  than  one  child,  the  death  benefit 
shall  be  equally  divided.  In  other  cases  the  question  of 
dependency  shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the 
fact  as  at  the  time  of  the  injury.  In  such  other  cases  where 
there  are  more  than  one  wholly  dependent  the  death  benefit 
shall  be  equally  divided  between  them,  and  the  persons 
partly  dependent,  if  any,  shall  receive  no  part  thereof;  if 
there  is  no  one  wholly  dependent  and  more  than  one  person 
partly  dependent,  the  death  benefit  shall  be  divided  among 
them  according  to  the  relative  extent  of  their  dependency. 
Michigan.  —  Dependents  and  the  extent  of  dependency  shall  be  de- 
termined as  of  date  of  accident,  and  death  benefit  becomes 
fixed  at  that  time.  In  case  of  death  of  one  of  such  depend- 
ents, his  portion  is  payable  to  surviving  dependents  pro  rata. 
The  following  persons  are  conclusively  presumed  to  be 
whoUy  dependent: 

A  wife  upon  a  husband  with  whom  she  lives  at  the  time 
of  his  death;  a  husband  upon  a  wife  with  whom  he  lives  at 
the  time  of  her  death;  a  child  or  children  under  the  age  of 
16  years  (or  over  that  age  if  physically  or  mentally  incapaci- 
tatad  from  earning)  upon  tne  parent  with  whom  he  is  or 
they  are  left  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  such  parent,  there 
being  no  surviving  parent.  In  case  there  is  more  than  one 
dependent  child,  the  death  benefit  is  divided  equally  among 
them.  In  other  cases  questions  of  dependency  are  de- 
termined in  accordance  with  the  facts  as  they  may  be  at 
the  time  of  the  injury. 

In  case  there  is  more  than  one  person  held  dependent, 
those  partially  dependent  are  not  entitled  to  anything.  If 
there  is  no  one  held  dependent  and  more  than  one  person 
partly  dependent,  the  death  benefit  is  divided  among  them 
according  to  the  relative  extent  of  their  dependency.  No 
person  considered  a  dependent  unless  a  member  of  the 
family  of  the  deceased  or  bears  to  him  the  relation  of  husband 
or  widow  or  any  lineal  descendant  or  ancestor  or  brother  or 
sister. 

Minnesota.  —  Who  are  dependents  and  allowances  to  each:  (1)  Wife 
and  children  presumed  wholly  dependent.  For  the  pur- 
poses of  this  act,  the  foUo  wing-described  persons,  viz.  :  Wife 
minor  children  under  the  age  of  18  years,  or  those  over  that 
age  who  are  physically  or  mentally  incapacitated  from  earn- 
ing, shall  be  presumed  to  be  wholly  dependent. 

(2)  Actual  dependents:  Any  dependents  named  in  sub- 
division 1;  also  husband,  mother,  father,  grandmother, 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  103 

grandfather,  sisters,  and  brothers  who  were  wholly  sup- 
ported by  the  deceased  workman  at  the  time  of  his  death 
and  for  a  reasonable  period  of  time  immediately  prior  thereto 
shall  be  considered  his  actual  dependents,  and  payment  of 
compensation  shall  be  made  to  them  in  the  order  named. 

(3)  Partial  dependents:  Any  dependents  named  in  sub- 
division 2  who  regularly  derived  part  of  their  support  from 
the  wages  of  the  deceased  workman  at  the  time  of  his  death 
and  for  a  reasonable  period  of  time  immediately  prior  thereto 
shall  be  considered  his  partial  dependents,  and  payment  of 
compensation  shall  be  made  to  them  in  the  order  named. 
Nebraska. — The  following  persons  shall  be  conclusively  presumed  to 
be  wholly  dependent  for  support  upon  a  deceased  employee : 

A  wife  upon  a  husband  with  whom  she  is  living  at  the 
time  of  his  death;  a  husband  upon  a  wife  with  whom  he  is 
living  at  the  time  of  her  death;  a  child  or  children  under  the 
age  of  16  years  (or  over  said  age,  if  physically  or  mentally 
incapacitated  from  earning)  upon  the  parent  with  whom  he 
is  or  they  are  living  at  the  time  of  death  of  such  parent,  there 
being  no  surviving  parent.  In  case  there  is  more  than  one 
child  thus  dependent,  the  death  benefit  shall  be  divided 
equally  among  them. 

Compensation  shall  be  payable  under  sections  22  and  23 
to  or  on  account  of  any  child,  brother,  or  sister,  only  if  and 
while  such  child,  brother,  or  sister  is  under  the  age  of  16. 
No  compensation  shall  be  payable  under  said  sections  to  a 
widow  unless  she  was  living  with  her  deceased  husband  at 
the  time  of  his  death;  provided,  that  a  wife  or  a  husband 
living  in  a  state  of  abandonment  for  more  than  two  years  at 
the  time  of  the  injury,  or  subsequently,  shall  not  be" a  bene- 
ficiary under  this  act.  The  terms  "child"  and  " children" 
shall  include  step-children  and  adopted  children  if  members 
of  the  decedent's  household  at  the  time  of  his  death,  and 
shall  include  posthumous  children.  If  the  compensation 
payable  under  said  sections  to  any  person  shall  for  any  cause 
cease,  the  compensation  to  the  remaining  persons  entitled 
thereunder  shall  thereafter  be  the  same  as  would  have  been 
payable  to  them  had  they  been  the  only  persons  entitled  to 
compensation  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  deceased.  If 
a  widow  or  widower  of  a  deceased  employee  shall  remarry, 
then  the  compensation  benefits  shall  become  payable  to  the 
child  or  children  of  such  widow  or  widower,  if  there  be  any 
such  child  or  children;  but  if  there  be  no  such  child  or 
children  of  such  dependent  widow  or  widower,  shall  not  be 
affected  by  such  remarriage. 

In  all  other  cases,  questions  of  dependency,  in  whole  or  in 

Eart,  shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  fact,  as  the 
ict  may  be  at  the  time  of  the  injury;  and  in  such  other  cases, 
if  there  is  more  than  one  person  wholly  dependent,  the  death 
benefit  shall  be  divided  equally  among  them,  and  persons 
partly  dependent,  if  any,  shall  receive  no  part  thereof;  if 
there  is  no  one  wholly  dependent  and  more  than  one  person 
partly  dependent,  the  death  benefit  shall  be  divided  among 
them  according  to  the  relative  extent  of  their  dependency. 


104  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

No  person  shall  be  considered  a  dependent  unless  he  or  she 
be  a  member  of  the  family  of  the  deceased  employe,  or  bears 
to  him  the  relation  of  widow,  or  widower,  or  lineal  descend- 
ent,  or  ancestor,  or  brother,  or  sister. 

Questions  as  to  who  constitute  dependents  and  the  extent 
of  their  dependency  shall  be  determined  as  of  the  date  of  the 
accident  to  the  employee,  and  the  death  benefit  shall  be 
directly  recoverable  bv  and  payable  to  the  dependent  or 
dependents  entitled  thereto,  or  their  legal  guardians  or 
trustees.  No  dependent  of  an  injured  employee  shall  be 
deemed  during  the  life  of  such  employee  a  party  in  interest 
to  any  proceeding  by  him  for  the  enforcement  of  collection 
of  any  claim  for  compensation,  nor  as  respects  the  com- 
promise thereof  by  such  employee. 

Nevada. — The  following  conclusively  presumed  to  be  wholly  depend- 
ent: The  surviving  spouse,  unless  it  appear  that  the  sur- 
vivor had  willfully  deserted  without  fault  upon  the  dece- 
dent's part;  a  child  or  children  under  16  years  of  age  (and 
over  that  age  if  physically  or  mentally  incapacitated  from 
earning)  whether  actually  dependent  for  support  upon  the 
parent  or  not;  a  parent  of  a  minor  entitled  to  the  earn- 
ings of  the  decedent  presumed  to  be  dependent  for  a  period 
not  exceeding  four  years.  In  all  other  cases  questions 
of  dependency  in  whole  or  in  part  shall  be  determined  in 
accordance  with  the  fact  as  the  fact  may  be  at  the  time 
of  the  injury.  Step-parents  regarded  as  parents;  adopted 
children  or  stepchildren  regarded  same  as  if  issue  of  body. 

New  Hampshire. — A  widow,  children,  or  parents,  resident  of  the 
State,  either  wholly  or  partially  dependent  on  the  decedent's 
earnings. 

New  Jersey. — The  term  " dependent"  shall  apply  to  and  include  any 
or  all  of  the  following  who  are  dependent  upon  the  deceased 
at  the  time  of  accident  or  death,  namely:  Husband,  widow, 
parents,  grandparents,  children,  stepchildren,  grandchildren, 
posthumous  children,  illegitimate  children,  brothers,  sisters, 
half  brothers,  half  sisters.  Legally  adopted  children  con- 
sidered as  natural  children.  Dependency  presumed  as  to 
widow  living  with  husband  at  time  of  his  decease,  and 
children  under  the  age  of  18  years,  stepchildren,  and  ille- 
gitimate children  presumed  to  be  dependent  when  they  are 
part  of  decedent's  household  at  the  time  of  his  death. 

New  York. — Surviving  wife  or  dependent  husband,  surviving  child 
or  children  under  the  age  of  18  years,  parent,  or  grand- 
parent. If  amount  payable  to  surviving  wife  or  dependent 
husband  and  to  children  under  the  age  of  18  years  shall  be 
less  than  an  aggregate  of  66  §  per  cent  of  the  average  wages 
of  the  deceased,  then  grandchildren  or  brothers  and  sisters 
under  the  age  of  18  years  are  included,  if  dependent  upon 
the  decedent  at  the  time  of  the  accident. 

Ohio. — The  following  persons  are  presumed  to  be  wholly  dependent 
upon  a  deceased  employee:  Wife,  child  or  children  under 
16  or  over  said  age  if  physically  or  mentally  incapacitated 
from  earning.  In  all  other  cases  the  question  of  dependency 


DIGEST   OF    STATE    LAWS.  105 

shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  facts  in  each 
particular  case. 

Oregon. — Widow  or  invalid  widower,  minor  children  under  the  age 
of  16  years;  the  parent  or  parents  of  a  workman  under  the 
age  of  21  years  and  unmarried;  in  the  absence  of  a  widow 
or  widower  or  child  under  the  age  of  16  years,  any  person 
actually  dependent  upon  the  decedent. 

Rhode  Island. — The  following  persons  shall  be  conclusively  presumed 
to  be  wholly  dependent: 

A  wife  upon  a  husband  with  whom  she  lives  or  upon 
whom  she  is  dependent  at  the  time  of  his  death;  a  husband 
upon  a  wife  with  whom  he  lives  or  upon  whom  he  is  depend- 
ent at  the  time  of  her  death;  a  child  or  children,  including 
adopted  and  step  children,  under  the  age  of  18  years  (or 
over  said  age  but  physically  or  mentally  incapacitated  from 
earning)  upon  the  parent  with  whom  he  is  or  they  are  living 
or  are  dependent  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  such  parent, 
there  being  no  surviving  dependent  parent.  In  case  there 
is  more  than  one  child  thus  dependent,  compensation  shall 
be  divided  equally. 

In  all  other  cases  questions  of  entire  or  partial  depend- 
ency shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  fact  as  the 
fact  may  have  been  at  the  time  of  the  injury.  If  there  is 
more  than  one  person  wholly  dependent,  the  compensation 
shall  be  divided  equally  among  them,  and  persons  partly 
dependent,  if  any,  shall  receive  no  part  thereof  during  the 
period  in  which  compensation  is  paid  to  persons  wholly 
dependent.  If  there  is  no  one  wholly  dependent  and  more 
than  one  person  partly  dependent,  the  compensation  shall 
be  divided  among  them  according  to  the  relative  extent  of 
their  dependency. 

No  person  shall  be  considered  a  dependent  unless  he  is  a 
member  of  the  employee's  family  or  next  of  kin,  wholly  or 
partly  dependent  upon  the  wages,  earnings,  or  salary  of  the 
employee  for  support  at  the  time  of  the  injury. 

Texas. — Legal  beneficiaries  of  the  deceased  employee;  the  compensa- 
tion to  be  distributed  according  to  the  law  provided  for  the 
distribution  of  the  property  01  the  deceased.  Creditors  in 
the  absence  of  legal  beneficiaries. 

Washington. — Dependent  means  any  of  the  following-named  relatives 
of  a  workman  whose  death  results  from  any  injury  and  who 
leaves  surviving  no  widow,  widower,  or  child  under  the  age 
of  16  years,  viz,  invalid  child  over  the  age  of  16  years, 
daughter  between  16  and  18  years  of  age,  father,  mother, 
grandfather,  grandmother,  stepfather,  stepmother,  grand- 
son, granddaughter,  stepson,  stepdaughter,  brother,  sister, 
half  sister,  half  brother,  niece,  nephew,  who  at  the  time 
of  the  accident  are  dependent,  in  whole  or  in  part,  for  their 
support  upon  the  earnings  of  the  workman.  Except  where 
otnerwise  provided  by  treaty,  aliens,  other  than  father  or 
mother,  not  residing  within  the  United  States  at  the  time 
of  the  accident,  are  not  included. 

West  Virginia. — A  widow,  invalid  widower,  child  under  the  age  at  which 
he  or  she  may  be  lawfully  employed  in  any  industry,  invalid 


106  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

child  over  such  age,  father,  mother,  grandfather,  or  grand- 
mother, who,  at  the  time  of  the  injury  causing  death  is 
dependent  in  whole  or  in  part  for  his  or  her  support  upon 
the  earnings  of  the  employee. 

Wisconsin. — The  following  shall  be  conclusively  presumed  to  be  solely 
and  wholly  dependent  for  support  upon  a  deceased  employee : 

(a)  A  wife  upon  a  husband  with  whom  she  is  living  at  the 
time  of  his  death;  (b)  a  husband  upon  a  wife  with  whom  he 
is  living  at  the  time  of  her  death ;  (c)  a  child  or  children  un- 
der the  age  of  18  years  (or  over  said  age  but  physically  or 
mentally  incapacitated  from  earning),  upon  the  parent  with 
whom  he  or  they  are  living  at  the  tune  of  the  death  of  such 
parent,  there  being  no  surviving  dependent  parent.  In  case 
there  is  more  than  one  child  thus  dependent,  the  death  bene- 
fit shall  be  divided  between  such  dependents  in  such  pro- 
portion as  may  be  determined  by  the  commission  after  con- 
sidering the  ages  of  such  dependents  and  other  facts  bearing 
on  such  dependency. 

In  all  other  cases  questions  of  entire  or  partial  dependency 
shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the  fact,  as  the  fact 
may  be  at  the  tune  of  the  accident  to  the  employee;  and  in 
such  other  cases,  if  there  is  more  than  one  person  wholly  de- 
pendent, the  death  benefit  shall  be  divided  equally  among 
them,  and  persons  partially  dependent,  if  any,  shall  receive 
no  part  thereof;  and  if  there  is  more  than  one  person  par- 
tially dependent,  the  death  benefit  shall  be  divided  among 
them  according  to  the  relative  extent  of  their  dependency. 

No  person  shall  be  considered  a  dependent  unless  a  mem- 
ber of  the  family  of  the  deceased  employee,  or  one  who  bears 
to  him  the  relation  of  husband  or  widow,  or  lineal  de- 
scendant or  ancestor,  or  brother  or  sister. 

DETERMINATION    OF    AMOUNT   OF  COMPENSATION   AND  SETTLEMENT  OF 

DISPUTES. 

Arizona. — Determined  either  by  written  agreement  between  the  par- 
ties or  by  arbitration  or  by  reference  and  submission  to  the 
attorney  general;  in  case  of  a  refusal  or  a  failure  of  the  par- 
ties to  agree  upon  a  settlement  by  either  of  these  modes 
then  by  a  civil  action  at  law.  If  employer  fails  to  make  or 
pay  compensation  for  a  period  of  three  months  after  the 
accident,  or  for  two  months  after  the  payment  of  the  last 
monthly  compensation,  then  the  beneficiary  may  bring  an 
action  to  enforce  the  payment,  the  judgment  of  which  shall 
be  for  a  sum  equal  to  the  amount  of  payments  then  due 
and  prospectively  due  under  the  provisions  of  the  statute. 
The  court  awarding  the  judgment  shall  direct  that  the  judg- 
ment be  paid  ratably  in  installments,  or  by  agreement  of 
parties  the  court  may  direct  that  it  be  paid  in  lump  sum  if 
the  court  believes  it  to  be  to  the  best  interests  of  the  work- 
man. 

California. — By  release  or  settlement  agreement,  which  shall  be 
valid  only  when  it  provides  for  the  payment  of  full  compen- 
sation in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  statute  and 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  107 

approved  by  the  industrial  accident  commission  with  whom 
it  must  be  forthwith  filed ;  whereupon  the  commission  may, 
of  its  own  motion,  or  upon  application  of  either  party, 
without  notice,  enter  its  award  oased  upon  such  release  or 
settlement  agreement.  A  settlement  agreement  must  be 
in  writing,  duly  executed,  attested  by  two  disinterested 
witnesses,  and  must  specify  the  date  of  the  accident,  the 
average  weekly  wages  of  the  employee,  the  nature  of  the 
disability,  whether  total  or  partial,  permanent  or  temporary, 
the  amount  paid  or  due  and  unpaid  to  the  employee  up  to 
the  date  of  the  release  or  agreement,  or  both,  as  the  case 
may  be,  if  any,  the  amount  of  the  payments  or  benefits  then 
or  thereafter  to  be  made,  and  the  length  of  time  that  such 
payment  is  to  continue;  in  case  of  death,  the  name  of  the 
widow,  if  anv,  the  names  and  ages  of  all  children,  if  any,  the 
names  of  all  the  dependents,  if  any,  and  whether  such  de- 
pendents be  total  or  partial. 

In  case  of  dispute,  either  party  may  file  with  the  indus- 
trial accident  commission  an  application  for  a  hearing.  The 
commission  may  hear  the  controversv  or  refer  it  to  one  or 
more  referees.  Any  award  or  order  by  the  industrial  acci- 
dent commission  may  be  reviewed  by  writ  of  certiorari, 
upon  the  hearing  of  which  the  findings  and  conclusions  of 
the  commission  on  questions  of  fact  shall  be  conclusive  and 
final,  and  the  only  questions  considersd  in  the  review  are 
whether  or  not  the  commission  acted  without  or  in  excess  of 
its  powers,  or  was  the  order  or  decision  secured  by  fraud, 
or  is  the  order,  decision,  rule,  or  regulation,  unreasonable, 
and  whether  or  not  the  findings  of  fact  support  the  order, 
decision,  or  award  under  review.  The  industrial  accident 
commission  has  full  power  and  authority  to  adopt  reason- 
able rules  for  practice  and  procedure. 

Connecticut. — Volunteer  agreements:  If  an  employer  and  an  injured 
employee,  or  in  case  of  fatal  injurv  his  legal  representative, 
shall,  not  earlier  than  two  weeks  after  the  date  of  the  injury, 
reach  an  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation,  such  agree- 
ment shall  by  the  employer  be  submitted  in  writing  to  the 
commissioner,  with  a  statement  of  the  time,  place,  and 
nature  of  the  injury  upon  which  it  is  based;  and  if  said 
commissioner  shall  find  said  agreement  to  conform  to  the 
provisions  of  this  act  in  every  regard  he  shall  so  approve  it. 
Every  agreement  thus  approved  shall  be  filed  in  the  office 
of  the  clerk  of  the  superior  court  for  the  county  in  which  the 
injury  occurred  and  a  copy  thereof  shall  be  retained  by  the 
commissioner,  and  a  copy  of  the  same  delivered  to  each  of 
the  parties  and  thereafter  it  shall  be  as  binding  upon  both 
parties  as  an  award  by  the  commissioner.  Such  agreements 
shall  be  subject  to  subsequent  modification  as  changed  con- 
ditions may  justify,  but  no  modification  shall  be  valid  until 
approved  and  filed  by  the  commissioner. 

If  employer  and  employee  are  unable  to  agree,  the  matter 
is  submitted  to  the  commissioner,  who  makes  the  award. 

Illinois. — Any  settlement  agreement  executed  between  the  parties 
within  seven  days  after  the  injury  is  presumed  to  be  fraudu- 


108  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

lent,  and  no  employee,  person,  representative,  or  beneficiary 
shall  have  power  to  waive  any  of  the  provisions  of  the 
statute  with  regard  to  the  amount  which  may  be  payable, 
except  after  approval  by  the  industrial  board. 

Unless  settled  by  agreement,  all  questions  are  to  be  de- 
cided in  the  first  instance  by  an  arbitration  committee  of 
three  members,  one  to  be  selected  by  each  of  the  parties  and 
the  third  to  be  a  member  or  appointee  of  the  industrial  board. 
The  decision  of  such  committee  is  subject  to  review  by  the 
industrial  board.  The  decisions  of  the  board,  in  the  absence 
of  fraud,  are  conclusive,  but  subject,  however,  to  review 
by  the  supreme  court  on  questions  of  law. 

Iowa. — Settlement  agreements  must  be  filed  with  the  industrial  com- 
missioner, and  be  approved  by  him,  and  shall  be  approved 
by  hun  only  when  terms  conform  with  the  provisions  of  the 
statute.  In  case  of  dispute,  either  party  may  notify  the 
industrial  commissioner,  who  shall  thereupon  call  for  the 
formation  of  a  committee  of  arbitration,  consisting  of  three 
persons,  one  of  whom  shall  be  the  industrial  commissioner, 
who  shall  act  as  chairman;  the  other  two  shall  be  named 
respectively  by  the  two  parties.  The  industrial  commis- 
sioner has  power  to  review  and  revise  the  decision  of  the 
arbitration  committee.  The  decision  of  the  commissioner 
may  be  presented  to  the  district  court  and  a  decree  in 
accordance  therewith  rendered.  There  shall  be  no  appeal 
therefrom  upon  questions  of  fact. 

Kansas.  —Compensation  due  under  the  act  may  be  settled  by  agree- 
ment. 

Every  agreement  for  compensation  and  every  award  shall 
be  in  writing,  signed  and  acknowledged  by  the  parties  or  by 
the  arbitrator  or  secretary  of  the  committee  hereinbefore 
referred  to,  and  shall  specify  the  amount  due  and  unpaid  by 
the  employer  to  the  workman  up  to  the  date  of  the  agree- 
ment or  award,  and,  if  any,  the  amount  of  the  payments 
thereafter  to  be  paid  by  the  employer  to  the  workman  and 
the  length  of  time  such  payments  shall  continue. 

If  compensation  be  not  so  settled  by  agreement:  (a)  If 
any  committee  representative  of  the  employer  and  the  work- 
man exists,  organized  for  the  purpose  of  settling  disputes 
under  this  act,  the  matter  shall,  unless  either  party  objects 
by  notice  in  writing  delivered  or  sent  by  registered  mail  to 
the  other  party  before  the  committee  meets  to  consider  the 
matter,  be  settled  in  accordance  with  its  rules  by  such  com- 
mittee or  by  an  arbitrator  selected  by  it.  (6)  If  either 
party  so  objects,  or  there  is  no  such  committee,  or  the  com- 
mittee or  the  arbitrator  to  whom  it  refers  the  matter  fails  to 
settle  it  within  60  days  from  the  date  of  the  claim,  the 
matter  may  be  settled  by  a  single  arbitrator  agreed  on  by 
the  parties,  or  appointed  by  any  judge  of  a  court  where  an 
action  might  be  maintained.  The  consent  to  arbitration 
shall  be  in  writing  and  signed  by  the  parties  and  may  limit 
the  fees  of  the  arbitrator  and  the  time  within  which  the 
award  must  be  made.  And  unless  such  consent  and  the 
order  of  appointment  expressly  refers  other  questions,  only 


DIGEST  OF  STATE  LAWS.  109 

the  question  of  the  amount  of  compensation  shall  be  deemed 
to  be  in  issue. 
Maryland. — By  agreement  of  the  parties,  by  arbitration,  or  by  the 

judge  of  the  circuit  court. 

Massachusetts. — If  the  insurer  and  the  injured  employee  reach  an 
agreement  in  regard  to  compensation,  memorandum  of  it 
must  be  filed  with  the  industrial-accident  board  and  approved 
by  it.  Such  approval  shall  be  given  only  when  the  terms 
conform  with  trie  provisions  of  the  act. 

In  case  of  failure  to  agree,  either  party  may  notify  the 
industrial-accident  board,  who  shall  thereupon  cah1  for  the 
formation  of  a  committee  of  arbitration.  The  committee  of 
arbitration  shall  consist  of  three  members,  one  of  whom 
shall  be  a  member  of  the  industrial-accident  board  and  shall 
act  as  chairman.  The  other  two  members  shall  be  named, 
respectively,  by  the  two  parties. 

1  he  decision  is  final  unless  claim  for  a  review  before  the 
board  is  filed  by  either  party  within  seven  days.  If  claim 
for  a  review  is  filed,  the  board  shall  hear  the  parties  and  may 
hoar  evidence,  revise  the  decision  of  the  committee,  or  refer 
back  for  further  findings  of  fact.  No  parties  shall  have  the 
right  to  a  second  hearing. 

Where  proceedings  are  brought,  prosecuted,  or  defended 
without  reasonable  ground,  the  committee  of  arbitration, 
industrial-accident  board,  or  any  court  before  whom  any 
such  proceedings  are  brought  under  the  act  may  assess  the 
whole  cost  upon  the  offending  party. 

A  memorandum  of  the  agreement,  approved  by  the  board, 
or  an  order  or  decision  of  the  board  may  be  filed  with  the 
superior  court,  which  shall  thereupon  render  a  decree  in 
accordance  therewith.  There  shall  be  no  appeal  from  such  a 
decree  upon  questions  of  fact. 

Michigan. — If  employer  or  insurer  of  injured  employee  reach  an 
agreement,  a  memorandum  of  same  must  be  filed  with  the 
industrial  accident  board  and  must  be  final  and  binding  if 
approved  by  the  board.  The  board  shall  approve  such 
agreement  only  when  it  conforms  with  the  conditions  of  the 
act. 

In  case  of  failure  to  agree,  either  party  may  notify 
industrial  accident  board,  who  shall  thereupon  call  for  the 
formation  of  a  committee  of  arbitration  which  shall  consist 
of  three  members,  one  of  whom  shall  be  a  member  of  the 
accident  board  and  shall  act  as  chairman. 

Hearings  to  be  held  at  the  locality  where  injury  occurred 
and  decision  of  committee  to  be  filed  with  the  industrial 
accident  board.  The  decision  shall  be  final  unless  a  claim 
for  a  review  before  the  board  is  filed  within  seven  days. 

If  claim  for  review  is  filed,  the  board  shall  promptly  review 
the  decision  at  such  place  as  the  board  shall  deem  advisable. 
The  findings  of  fact  by  the  industrial  accident  board  upon 
review  shall  be  conclusive,  but  the  supreme  court  shall  have 
power  to  review  questions  of  law  involved  in  determination 
of  board. 


110  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Minnesota. — All  settlement  agreements  shall  be  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  the  act,  and  shall  be  approved  by  a  judge 
of  the  district  court.  In  case  of  dispute,  either  party  may 
submit  claim  to  a  judge  of  the  district  court,  who  is  author- 
ized to  hear  and  determine  such  disputes  in  a  summary 
manner,  and  his  decisions  as  to  all  questions  of  fact  are 
conclusive  and  binding.  Decisions  on  questions  of  law  may 
be  reviewed  by  certiorari. 

Nebraska. — Parties  have  the  right  to  settle  all  matters  of  compensa- 
tion between  themselves.  A  report  of  such  settlements  shall 
be  filed  with  the  employer  and  with  the  labor  commissioner 
within  60  days  of  such  settlement.  In  case  of  dispute, 
claim  may  be  submitted  to  arbitration  in  such  manner  or 
method  as  may  be  mutually  agreed  upon,  or  claim  may  be 
submitted  by  either  party  to  the  district  court,  which  court 
shall  have  authority  to  hear  and  determine  the  cause  as  a 
suit  in  equity  and  enter  a  final  judgment.  An  appeal  may 
be  prosecuted  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  State 
regulating  appeals. 

Nevada. — The  injured  workman,  or,  in  case  of  death,  the  parties 
entitled  to  compensation  under  the  act,  must  file  application 
with  industrial  insurance  commission,  together  with  a  certi- 
ficate from  the  physician  who  attended  the  injured  person, 
and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  physician  to  inform  the  in- 
jured workman  of  his  rights  under  the  act  and  to  lend  all 
necessary  assistance  in  making  the  application  for  com- 
pensation; and  such  proof  of  other  matters  as  required  by 
the  rules  of  the  department,  without  charge  to  the  workman. 
No  expressed  provision  for  a  hearing  or  for  an  appeal  is 
made  by  the  statute  other  than  the  provision  giving  the 
commission  power  to  adopt  reasonable  and  proper  rules  to 
govern  its  procedure,  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  proofs 
and  evidence,  and  the  method  of  taking  them  and  furnishing 
the  same. 

New  Hampshire. — By  agreement  between  the  parties  or  by  an  action 
at  equity.  The  judgment  in  such  action  shall  be  for  a  lump 
sum  equal  to  the  amount  of  payments  then  prospectively 
due  under  the  act. 

New  Jersey. — No  agreement  between  the  parties  for  a  lesser  sum 
than  that  which  may  be  determined  by  the  judge  of  the 
court  of  common  pleas  to  be  due  shall  operate  as  a  bar  to 
the  determination  of  a  controversy  upon  its  merits,  or  to 
the  award  of  a  larger  sum,  if  it  shall  be  determined  by  the 
said  judge  that  the  amount  agreed  upon  is  less  than  the 
injured  employee  or  his  dependents  are  properly  entitled 
to  receive.  In  case  of  dispute,  either  party  may  submit  a 
claim,  both  as  to  questions  of  fact,  nature,  and  effect  of  the 
injuries,  and  the  amount  of  compensation  therefor  according 
to  the  schedule  provided,  to  the  judge  of  the  court  of  com- 
mon pleas,  which  judge  is  hereby  authorized  to  hear  and 
determine  such  disputes  in  a  summary  manner,  and  his 
decision  as  to  all  question  of  fact  shall  be  conclusive  and 
binding. 


DIGEST   OF    STATE   LAWS.  Ill 

New  York. — The  workmen's  compensation  commission  shall  have 
full  power  and  authority  to  determine  all  questions  in  rela- 
tion to  claims  for  compensation.  The  commission  shall 
make,  or  cause  to  be  made,  such  investigations  as  shall  be 
necessary,  and  upon  application  of  either  party  shall  order 
a  hearing,  and  shall  make  its  decision  ana  award  and  file 
the  same  in  the  office  of  the  commission,  together  with  its 
conclusions  of  fact  and  rulings  of  law.  The  decision  of  the 
commission  shall  be  final  as  to  all  questions  of  fact.  The 
commission  may,  before  making  an  award,  require  the 
claimant  to  appear  before  an  arbitration  committee  ap- 
pointed by  it  and  consisting  of  one  representative  of  em- 
ployees, one  representative  of  employers,  and  either  a 
member  of  the  commission  or  a  person  specially  deputized 
by  the  commission  to  act  as  chairman,  before  which  the 
findings  with  regard  to  the  claim  shall  be  educed,  and  by 
which  it  shall  be  considered  and  reported  upon. 

An  award  or  decision  of  the  commission  shall  be  final  and 
conclusive  upon  all  questions  within  its  jurisdiction,  as 
against  the  State  fund  or  between  the  parties,  unless  within 
30  days  after  a  copy  of  such  award  or  decision  has  been  sent 
to  the  parties,  an  appeal  be  taken  to  the  appellate  division 
of  the  supreme  court  of  the  third  department.  The  com- 
mission may  also,  in  its  discretion,  where  the  claim  for  com- 
pensation was  not  made  against  the  State  fund,  on  the  appli- 
cation of  either  party,  certify  to  such  appellate  division  of 
the  supreme  court  questions  of  law  involved  in  its  decision. 
Such  appeals  and  the  questions  so  certified  shall  be  heard 
in  a  summary  manner  and  shall  have  precedence  over  all 
other  civil  cases  in  such  court.  The  commission  shall  be 
deemed  a  party  to  every  such  appeal,  and  the  attorney  gen- 
eral, without  extra  compensation,  shall  represent  the  com- 
mission thereon.  An  appeal  may  also  be  taken  to  the  court 
of  appeals  in  all  cases  where  such  an  appeal  would  lie  from 
a  decision  of  an  appellate  division,  in  the  same  manner  and 
subject  to  the  same  limitations  as  is  now  provided  in  civil 
actions.  Otherwise  such  appeals  shall  be  subject  to  the  law 
and  practice  applicable  to  appeals  in  civil  actions.  Upon 
the  final  determination  of  such  an  appeal,  the  commission 
shall  make  an  award  or  decision  in  accordance  therewith. 

The  commission  has  power  to  appoint  deputy  commis- 
sioners with  the  powers  of  a  commissioner  in  determination 
of  claims.  If  the  award  requires  payment  of  compensation 
otherwise  than  from  the  State  fund,  all  payments  as  required 
by  the  award  shall  be  made  directly  to  the  commission  or  to 
a  deputy  specially  authorized  to  receive  the  same  and  dis- 
burse it  in  accordance  with  its  award  to  the  persons  entitled 
thereto. 

Ohio. — The  State  liability  board  of  awards  shall  have  full  power  and 
authority  to  hear  and  determine  all  questions  within  its 
jurisdiction,  and  its  decision  thereon  shall  be  final;  provided 
that  in  case  the  final  action  of  the  board  denies  the  right  of 
the  claimant  to  participate  at  all  in  such  fund  on  the  ground 
that  the  injury  was  sell -inflicted  or  on  the  ground  that  the 


112  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

injury  did  not  arise  in  the  course  of  employment,  or  upon 
any  other  ground  going  to  the  basis  of  the  claimant's  right, 
then  the  claimant  has  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  common 
pleas  court. 

Oregon. — The  workman  entitled  to  compensation  under  the  act  shall 
file  with  the  commission  his  application  together  with  a  cer- 
tificate from  the  physician  who  attended  him,  and  it  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  physician  to  inform  the  injured  workman 
of  his  rights  under  the  act  and  to  lend  all  necessary  assistance 
in  making  the  application  for  the  compensation  and  such 
proof  of  other  matters  as  required  by  the  rules  of  the  com- 
mission, without  charge  to  the  workman.  Anyone  aggrieved 
by  the  decision  of  the  commission  may  appeal  to  the  circuit 
court  by  an  informal  and  summary  procedure. 

Rhode  Island. — All  settlements  and  agreements  must  be  filed  in  the 
office  of  the  clerk  of  the  superior  court,  who  shall  forthwith 
docket  and  present  the  same  to  the  justice  of  the  superior 
court,  and  when  approved  by  the  justice,  the  agreements 
shah1  be  enforceable  by  said  superior  court.  Such  agree- 
ment shall  be  approved  by  the  justice  only  when  its  terms 
conform  with  the  provisions  of  the  act.  In  case  of  dispute, 
either  party  may  file  in  the  offices  of  the  clerk  of  the  superior 
court  a  petition,  stating  the  names  and  residences  of  the 
parties,  the  facts  relating  to  employment  at  the  time  of  the 
injury,  the  cause,  extent,  and  character  of  the  injury,  the 
amount  of  wages,  earnings,  or  salary  received  at  the  time  of 
the  injury,  and  such  other  facts  as  may  be  necessary  and 
proper  for  the  information  of  the  court. 

Texas. — All  questions  arising  under  the  act  not  settled  by  agreement 
between  the  parties  shall  be  determined  by  the  industrial 
accident  board.  Any  interested  party  who  does  not  consent 
to  abide  by  the  final  ruling  and  decision  of  such  board  of  any 
disability  claim  may  sue  on  such  claim,  or  may  require  suit 
to  be  brought  thereon,  in  some  court  of  competent  juris- 
diction, and  the  board  shall  proceed  no  further  toward  the 
adjustment  of  such  claim. 

Washington. — Where  a  workman  is  entitled  to  compensation  under 
this  act  he  shall  file  with  the  department  his  application 
for  such,  together  with  the  certificate  of  the  physician  who 
attended  him,  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  physician  to 
inform  the  injured  workman  of  his  rights  under  this  act  and 
to  lend  all  necessary  assistance  in  making  this  application 
for  compensation  and  such  proof  of  other  matters  as  re- 
quired by  the  rules  of  the  department  without  charge  to  the 
workman. 

West  Virginia. — The  commission  hears  and  determines  all  questions 
within  its  jurisdiction  and  its  decision  thereon  is  final.  But 
where  the  commission  in  its  final  action  denies  the  right  of  a 
claimant  to  participate  at  all  in  the  fund,  on  any  ground 
going  to  the  basis  of  the  claimant's  right,  then  the  claimant 
may,  within  60  days  after  notice  of  such  final  action,  apply 
for  appeal  to  the  supreme  court  of  appeals.  The  latter 
court  decides  whether  or  not  an  appeal  shall  be  granted, 
and  if  granted,  hears  such  appeal. 


DIGEST    OF    STATE    LAWS.  113 

Wisconsin. — Every  compromise  of  a  claim  for  compensation  shal1  be 
subject  to  review  by,  and  may  be  set  aside,  modified,  or 
confirmed  by,  the  commission,  upon  application  made 
within  one  year  from  the  time  of  compromise. 

In  case  01  dispute,  any  party  interested  may  file  an  appli- 
cation in  writing  with  the  industrial  commission,  which  will 
fix  the  time  for  the  hearing  thereof,  hear  the  testimony,  make 
and  file  its  findings  and  its  award.  Pending  the  hearing,  in 
determination  of  any  controversy,  the  commission  shall 
have  power  to  order  the  payment  of  such,  or  any  part  of, 
the  compensation  which  is  or  may  fall  due,  as  to  which  the 
party  from  whom  the  same  is  claimed  does  not  deny  liability 
in  good  faith.  The  findings  of  fact  made  by  the  commission 
acting  within  its  powers  shall,  in  the  absence  of  fraud,  be 
conclusive.  The  order  or  award  shall  be  subject  to  review 
only  by  action  for  such  review  and  shall  be  set  aside  only 
upon  the  following  grounds:  That  the  commission  acted 
without  or  in  excess  of  its  powers;  that  the  order  or  award 
was  secured  by  fraud;  that  the  findings  of  fact  by  the 
commission  do  not  support  the  order  or  award. 

EXCLUSIVENESS    OF   REMEDY. 

Arizona. — The  employee  has  option  after  injury  either  to  claim  com- 
pensation or  to  sue  for  damages  under  the  liability  law. 

California. — When  the  employer  is  guilty  of  gross  negligence  or  willful 
misconduct,  in  which  case  the  employee  may,  at  his  option, 
either  claim  compensation  under  the  act  or  sue  at  law  for 
damages.  Otherwise  the  compensation  remedy  under  the 
act  is  exclusive. 

Connecticut. — Remedy  exclusive. 

Illinois. — Remedy  exclusive. 

Iowa. — Remedy  exclusive. 

Kansas. — Remedy  exclusive. 

Maryland. — Remedy  exclusive. 

Massachusetts. — Compensation  remedy  is  exclusive,  but  amount  may 
be  doubled  in  case  injury  is  due  to  the  serious  and  willful 
misconduct  of  employer  or  of  any  person  regularly  intrusted 
with  and  exercising  the  powers  01  superintendence. 

Michigan. — Remedy  exclusive. 

Minnesota. — Remedy  exclusive. 

Nebraska. — Remedy  exclusive. 

Nevada. — Remedy  exclusive. 

New  Hampshire. — Workman  has  right  of  election  after  injury  to 
accept  compensation  under  the  act  or  sue  for  damages  under 
the  liability  law. 

New  Jersey. — Remedy  exclusive. 

New  York. — Remedy  exclusive  when  employee  has  secured  the  pay- 
ment of  compensation  as  provided  in  the  act. 

Oliio. — Employee  may  sue  employer  under  liability  law  where  injury 
results  from  the  willful  act  of  the  employer  or  any  of  his 
officers  or  agents  or  from  the  failure  of  such  employer  or  any 
of  his  officers  or  agents  to  comply  with  any  lawful  require- 
ment for  the  protection  of  the  lives  and  safety  of  employees. 

30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2 8 


114  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Oregon. — Workman  or  his  dependents  have  the  right  of  action  for 
damages  for  injury  caused  by  failure  of  employer  to  install 
or  maintain  any  safety  appliance  devised  or  safeguard  re- 
quired by  statute. 

Rhode  Island. — Remedy  exclusive. 

Texas. — Remedy  exclusive  except  in  case  of  death  which  is  due  to 
willful  act  or  negligence  of  employer,  in  which  case  the 
latter  is  liable  for  damages. 

Washington. — If  injury  or  death  results  to  a  workman,  from  deliberate 
intention  from  his  employer  to  produce  such  injury  or  death, 
the  workman  or  his  dependents  shall  have  the  privilege  to 
come  under  the  act  and  also  have  cause  of  action  against  the 
employer  as  if  the  act  had  not  been  enacted,  if  in  excess  of 
damage  over  the  amount  received  or  receivable  under  the  act. 

West  Virginia. — Exclusive  remedy. 

Wisconsin. — Exclusive  remedy. 

METHODS    OF    INSURANCE. 

Arizona. — Insurance  not  compulsory. 

California. — Insurance  not  compulsory.  Employers  are  permitted 
under  the  law  to  insure  in  a  mutual  or  a  stock  company,  or 
in  the  State  fund,  creation  of  which  is  authorized  by  tine 
compensation  act.  Persons  entitled  to  compensation  may 
proceed  against  the  employer  or  insurance  carrier  either 
jointly  or  separately. 

Every  contract  insuring  against  liability  for  compensation 
must  contain  a  clause  to  the  effect  that  the  insurance  carrier 
shall  be  directly  and  primarily  liable  to  the  employee  or  his 
dependents  to  pay  the  compensation;  that  as  between  the 
parties  notice  to  or  knowledge  of  the  occurrence  of  the  injury 
on  the  part  of  the  employer  shall  be  deemed  notice  or  knowl- 
edge on  the  part  of  the  insurance  carrier.  The  insurance 
contract  or  policy  shall  not  contain  any  provisions  relieving 
the  insurance  carrier  from  payment  when  the  employer 
becomes  insolvent  or  is  discharged  in  bankruptcy.  Where, 
after  accident,  it  appears  that  the  employer  is  insured 
against  liability  of  the  full  amount  of  compensation  payable, 
or  that  may  become  payable,  the  employer  shall  thereupon 
be  relieved  from  compensation  to  such  claimant  and  the 
insurance  carrier  substituted  in  his  place  in  any  proceeding 
therefor. 

If  any  insurance  policy  contains  a  limitation  as  to  the 
compensation  payable,  such  limitation  is  to  be  printed  in 
the  body  of  the  policy  in  bold-face  type,  and  in  addition 
thereto  the  remark  " Limited  compensation  policy"  shall 
be  printed  on  the  top  of  the  policy  in  bold-face  type. 

No  insurance  carrier  shall  insure  against  the  liability  of 
the  employer  for  damages  recoverable  at  law  for  the  gross 
negligence  of  the  employer,  which  liability  exists  under  the 
California  statute  in  addition  to  the  right  to  compensation. 

A  State  compensation  insurance  fund  is  created  which, 
as  declared  by  the  statute,  shall,  "  after  a  reasonable  time 
during  which  it  may  establish  a  business,  be  fairly  competi- 


DIGEST   OF    STATE   LAWS.  115 

tive  with  other  insurance  carriers,  and  it  is  the  intent  of  the 
legislature  that  said  fund  shall  ultimately  become  neither 
more  nor  less  than  self-supporting."  Such  compensation 
insurance  fund  is  to  be  administered  by  the  industrial  acci- 
dent commission,  with  all  the  powers  pi  a  government  body, 
of  a  private  insurance  carrier,  and  with  the  power  to  dele- 
gate to  the  manager  of  the  State  compensation  insurance 
fund  any  of  its  powers,  functions,  or  duties,  under  State 
rules  and  regulations,  and  subject  to  such  conditions  as  it 
may  from  tune  to  tune  prescribe. 

Li  conducting  the  compensation  insurance  fund,  the 
commission  have  power  to  decline  to  insure  any  risk  in 
which  the  minimum  requirements  of  the  commission  with 
regard  to  construction,  equipment,  and  operation  are  not 
observed,  or  which  is  beyond  the  safe  carrying  of  the  State 
compensation  insurance  fund,  but  shall  not  have  power  or 
authority  to  otherwise  refuse  to  insure  any  compensation 
risk  tendered  with  the  premium  therefor.  The  commission 
is  given  power  to  contract  with  physicians,  surgeons,  and  hos- 
pitals for  medical  and  surgical  treatment  and  the  care  and 
nursing  of  injured  persons  entitled  to  benefits  from  the  fund. 

Rates  are  to  be  based  upon  " reserve"  and  not  upon 
"assessment,"  and  are  to  be  such  as  to  produce  a  reasonable 
surplus  to  cover  the  catastrophe  hazard.  It  may  issue 
either  limited  or  unlimited  insurance  contracts.  The  com- 
pensation insurance  fund  may  issue  policies  covering  with 
their  employees  those  employers  who  perform  labor  inci- 
dental to  their  occupations  and  those  members  of  the 
families  of  such  employers  engaged  in  the  same  occupation. 
Connecticut. — Every  employer  who  does  not  reject  the  compensation 
act  must  either  furnish  to  the  commissioner  satisfactory 
proof  of  his  solvency  and  financial  ability  to  pay  directly 
the  compensation  or  to  insure  his  full  liability  in  one  or  both 
of  the  following  ways:  By  filing  with  the  insurance  com- 
missioner security  aggregating  the  obligations  of  the  act  or 
by  insuring  his  full  liabflity  in  a  stock  or  mutual  company 
or  association  or,  by  such  combination  of  the  above  methods 
as  he  may  choose,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  insurance 
commissioner. 

Every  insurance  policy  shall  contain  a  clause  that  as 
between  the  parties  notice  and  knowledge  of  the  occur- 
rence of  the  injury  by  the  insured  shall  be  deemed  notice 
and  knowledge  by  the  insurer,  and  that  the  latter  shall  in 
all  things  be  bound  by  and  subject  to  judgments  of  awards 
entered  against  the  insured. 

No  insurance  against  liability  under  the  act  shall  be 
written  unless  it  cover  the  entire  liability  of  the  employer 
and  contain  an  agreement  by  the  insurer  that  in  case  the 
insured  shall  become  insolvent,  or  be  discharged  in  bank- 
ruptcy, or  an  execution  upon  a  judgment  be  returned  unsat- 
isfied, the  claim  for  compensation  may  be  enforced  against 
the  insurer  to  the  same  extent  that  the  insured  could  have 
enforced  his  claim  against  such  insurer  had  he  paid  com- 
pensation. 


116  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Employers  who  have  accepted  the  act  are  given  authority 
to  organize  mutual  insurance  associations,  but  no  such 
association  shall  be  formed  to  include  employers  not  in  the 
same  or  similar  trade  or  business,  or  in  trades  or  businesses 
with  substantially  the  same  degree  of  hazard  of  injuries  to 
employees. 

Illinois. — Every  employer  who  elects  to  provide  and  pay  compensa- 
tion under  the  act  must,  if  required  by  the  industrial  board 
and  subject  to  its  approval,  either  (1)  file  proof  of  his  finan- 
cial ability  to  make  any  normally  required  payment,  or 
(2)  furnish  security  guaranteeing  the  payment  of  compen- 
sation normally  required  to  be  paid,  or  (3)  insure  his  liability 
in  some  authorized  corporation,  association,  or  organization, 
or  (4)  make  some  other  provision  for  securing  payment  of 
the  compensation  normally  required  to  be  paid.  If  an 
employer  fails  so  to  do,  then  he  becomes  liable  for  compen- 
sation in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  act,  or  for  dam- 
ages in  the  same  manner  as  if  he  had  not  elected  its  com- 
pensation features,  at  the  option  of  the  injured  employee 
or  his  representative.  " Normal"  liability  and  compensa- 
tion "normally"  required  to  be  paid  are  to  be  measured  by 
the  experience  of  the  employer  during  two  years  preceding 
demand  by  the  board,  and  if  there  is  no  such  individual 
basis  of  experience,  then  by  general  experience  under  similar 
circumstances. 

Any  contract  of  employment  providing  for  relief  benefit 
or  insurance  whereby  the  employee  is  required  to  pay  any 
premium  for  insurance  against  the  compensation  provided 
lor  in  the  act  shall  be  null  and  void. 

Iowa. — Every  employer  subject  to  provisions  of  the  act  shall  either 
furnish  proof  satisfactory  to  t>he  insurance  department  and 
the  industrial  commissioner  of  the  solvency  and  financial 
ability  to  pay  the  compensation  or  deposit  with  the  insur- 
ance department  security  satisfactory  to  such  department 
and  the  industrial  commissioner,  or  shall  insure  his  liability 
in  some  corporation,  association,  or  organization  approved 
by  the  State  department  of  insurance. 

Groups  of  employers  by  themselves  or  in  an  association 
with  any  or  all  of  their  workmen  may  form  insurance  asso- 
ciations, subject  to  reasonable  conditions  and  restrictions 
which  may  be  fixed  by  the  State  insurance  department. 

All  insurance  policies  shall  provide  that  as  between  the 
parties  notice  to  and  knowledge  of  the  occurrence  of  injury 
or  death  on  the  part  of  the  employer  shall  be  notice  and 
knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  insurer,  and  shall  be  bound  by 
every  agreement,  award,  or  judgment  rendered  against  the 
employer.  All  insurance  policies  shall  be  payable,  not- 
withstanding the  insolvency  or  bankruptcy  of  the  employer, 
and  the  workman  is  given  the  first  lien  upon  such  moneys. 

Commissions  for  placing  or  renewing  insurance  under 
the  act  are  limited  to  15  per  cent  of  the  premium  charged. 

Kansas. — Insurance  not  compulsory  where  the  payment  of  compen- 
sation to  the  workman  is  insured,  by  a  policy  or  policies, 
at  the  expense  of  the  employer,  the  insurer  shall  be  subro- 


DIGEST   OF   STATE   LAWS.  117 

gated  to  the  rights  and  duties  under  this  act  of  the  em- 
ployer, so  far  as  appropriate. 

Maryland. — Employers  accepting  the  act  are  required  to  insure  their 
employees  in  some  casualty  company  organized  under  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  or  authorized  to  do  business 
in  the  State,  except  that  employers  employing  not  less  than 
1,500  employees  may  establish  an  insurance  fund  from  sums 
contributed  by  himself  and  his  employees. 

Massachusetts. — The  Massachusetts  Employees'  Insurance  Associa- 
tion is  created  by  the  statute.  All  employers  who  accept 
the  act  must  become  subscribers,  unless  they  insure  the 
liability  to  pay  compensation  in  a  liability  insurance  com- 
pany authorized  to  do  business  within  the  Commonwealth. 
Every  private  company  writing  insurance  must  file  with 
the  insurance  department  its  classification  of  risks  and  pre- 
miums relating  thereto,  and  any  subsequent  proposed  clas- 
sifications or  premiums,  none  of  which  shall  take  effect  until 
the  insurance  commissioner  has  approved  the  same  as 
adequate  for  the  risk  to  which  they  respectively  apply. 

Michigan. — The  employers  accepting  the  act  must  either  furnish 
satisfactory  proof  to  the  State  industrial  board  of  the 
employer's  solvency  and  financial  ability  to  pav  directly  to 
his  employees  compensation  and  benefits  provided  for;  or 
insure  against  such  liability  in  any  employers'  insurance 
association  organized  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Michigan ; 
or  insure  against  such  liability  in  any  employers'  liability 
company  authorized  to  take  such  risk  in  the  State  of 
Michigan;  or  request  the  insurance  commission  of  the  State 
of  Michigan  to  assume  the  administration  of  the  disburse- 
ment of  the  compensation  except  the  furnishing  of  medical 
aid. 

The  board  has  the  right,  from  time  to  time,  to  review  and 
alter  its  decision  in  approving  the  election  of  the  employer 
to  adopt  any  one  of  the  foregoing  methods  of  payment,  it  in 
his  judgment  such  actions  necessary  are  desirable  to  secure 
and  safeguard  such  payments  to  employees. 

Every  contract  of  insurance  shall  be  deemed  to  be  made 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  compensation  act  and  pro- 
visions that  are  inconsistent  with  the  act  are  declared  to  be 
void.  Companies  not  approved  by  the  commissioner  of 
insurance  are  forbidden  to  enter  into  any  such  contract  for 
insurance  or  compensation. 

Any  person  entitled  to  compensation  under  the  act  shall 
have  the  right  to  enforce  in  his  own  name  the  liability  of  any 
insurance  company  or  of  any  employers'  association,  or 
commissioner  of  insurance  who  may  nave  insured  the  lia- 
bility for  such  compensation. 

Every  employer  against  whom  liability  may  exist  for 
compensation  under  the  act  may,  with  the  approval  of  the 
industrial  accident  board,  be  relieved  therefrom  by  depositing 
the  present  value  of  the  total  unpaid  compensation  for  which 
such  liability  exists  in  a  trust  company  or  by  the  purchase 
of  an  annuity. 


118  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

The  insurance  commission  is  to  assume  charge  of  levying 
and  collection  of  premiums  and  dividends  necessary  to  pay 
amounts  due  employees  or  their  dependents,  and  the  expense 
of  conducting  the  administration  of  such  funds  as  soon  as 
five  or  more  employers  having  on  their  pay  rolls  an  aggregate 
number  of  not  less  than  3,000  employees,  request  him  so  to 
do.  Neither  the  commissioner  of  insurance  nor  the  State  of 
Michigan  is  to  become  liable  for  the  payment  of  claims  for 
compensation  beyond  the  extent  of  the  funds  so  collected. 

It  is  the  intention  that  the  amounts  raised  shall  ulti- 
mately become  neither  more  nor  less  than  self-supporting 
and  ths  premiums  and  asssssments  levied  shall  be  subject  to 
readjustment  from  time  to  time  by  the  commissioner  of 
insurance. 

The  commissioner  of  insurance  is  to  classify  the  estab- 
lishments of  works  of  such  employers  and  groups  in  accord- 
ance with  the  nature  of  the  business  and  the  probable  risk 
of  injury,  determine  the  amount  of  the  premiums  or  assess- 
ments to  be  paid  by  such  employers,  prescribe  when  and  in 
what  manner  they  shall  be  paid  and  change  the  amount 
thereof,  both  in  respect  to  any  and  all  employers,  from  time 
to  time  as  circumstances  may  require,  the  condition  of  their 
respective  quarters,  establishments  or  places  of  work,  and  in 
respect  to  safety. 

At  the  beginning  of  each  fiscal  year  the  commissioner  of 
insurance  shall  collect  for  the  required  payment  premiums 
in  .such  amounts  as  shall,  together  with  any  balance  in  the 
accident  fund,  in  his  judgment  and  subject  to  the  approval 
of  the  industrial  accident  board,  be  sufficient  for  the  pay- 
ment of  all  sums  which  may  become  due  and  payable  to 
the  employees  of  any  employer,  together  with  the  expenses  of 
administering  such  fund  during  the  following  year. 

In  case  of  default  in  the  payment  of  premiums  the  sum  due 
shall  be  collected  by  an  action  at  law  in  the  name  of  the 
State.  The  defaulting  employer  shall,  during  the  period  of 
the  default,  be  liable  to  suit  by  the  injured  workman  or  his 
dependents  as  if  he  had  not  elected  to  become  subject  to  the 
act.  The  accident  fund  shall  pay  to  such  injured  workman 
or  his  dependents  the  amount  of  compensation  less  the 
amount  collected  from  the  employer  in  such  action. 

Provision  is  made  for  the  withdrawal  of  the  employer  at 
the  end  of  a  year. 

Minnesota. — If  the  risk  of  the  employer  is  carried  by  any  insurer 
doing  business  for  profit,  or  by  any  insurance  association 
or  corporation  formed  of  employers,  or  of  employers  and 
workmen,  to  insure  the  risks  under  this  act,  operating  by 
the  mutual  assessment  or  other  plan  or  otherwise,  then^  in 
so  far  as  policies  are  issued  on  such  risks  they  shall  provide 
for  compensation  for  injuries  or  death  according  to  the 
full  benefits  of  part  2  of  this  act. 

Such  policies  shall  contain  a  clause  to  the  effect  that  as 
between  the  workman  and  the  insurer,  that  notice  to  and 
knowledge  by  the  employer  of  the  occurrence  of  the  injury 
shall  be  deemed  notice  and  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the 


DIGEST   OF    STATE    LAWS.  119 

insurer;  that  jurisdiction  of  the  employer  for  arbitration 
or  other  purposes  shall  be  jurisdiction  of  the  insurer,  and 
that  the  insurer  will  in  all  things  be  bound  by  and  subject 
to  the  awards  rendered  against  such  employer  upon  the 
the  risks  so  insured. 

Such  policies  must  provide  that  the  workman  shall  have 
an  equitable  lien  upon  any  amount  which  shall  become 
owing  on  account  of  such  policy  to  the  employer  from  the 
insurer  and  in  case  of  the  legal  incapacity  or  inability  of 
the  employer  to  receive  the  said  amount  and  pay  it  over 
to  the  workman  or  dependents,  the  said  insurer  will  pay 
the  same  direct  to  said  workman  or  dependents,  thereby  dis- 
charging all  obligations  under  the  policy  to  the  employer 
and  all  of  the  obligations  of  the  employer  and  insurer  to 
the  workman;  but  such  policies  shall  contain  no  provisions 
relieving  the  insurance  company  from  payment  when  the 
employer  becomes  insolvent  or  discharged  in  bankruptcy 
or  otherwise,  during  the  period  the  policy  is  in  force,  ii  the 
compensation  remains  owing. 

The  insurer  must  be  one  authorized  by  law  to  conduct 
such  business  in  the  State  of  Minnesota,  and  authority  is 
hereby  granted  to  all  insurance  companies  writing  such 
insurance  to  include  in  their  policies  in  addition  to  the 
requirements  now  provided  by  law  the  additional  require- 
ments, terms,  and  conditions  in  this  section  provided. 

Nebraska. — Insurance  is  not  compulsory,  but  any  employer  may 
insure  in  any  liability  company  or  mutual  insurance  asso- 
ciation authorized  to  do  business  in  the  State.  No  policy 
of  insurance  against  liability  shall  be  made  unless  same 
cover  the  entire  liability  of  the  employer,  and  contain  an 
agreement  by  the  insurer  that  in  case  the  employer  shall 
be  or  become  insolvent  or  an  execution  for  a  judgment  for 
compensation  be  returned  unsatisfied  the  claim  may  be 
enforced  against  the  insurer  to  the  same  extent  that  the 
employer  could  have  enforced  his  claim  against  such 
insurer  had  he  paid  compensation.  Every  contract  of 
insurance  being  made  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  act. 
Provisions  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  thereof  are 
void. 

Nevada. — The  act  creates  a  State  insurance  fund  in  which  all  em- 
ployers coming  under  the  act  are  compelled  to  insure. 
The  State  of  Nevada  shall  not  be  liable  for  the  payment  of 
any  compensation,  save  and  except 'from  the  State  insur- 
ance fund,  to  be  derived  from  the  payment  of  premiums. 
The  expenses  of  administration  are  limited  to  10  per  cent 
of  the  amount  of  premiums  paid  into  the  fund.  The  insur- 
ance rates  are  fixed  by  the  statute,  with  power  to  the  indus- 
trial commission  to  increase  or  decrease  the  same  as  experi- 
ence and  conditions  demand.  The  commission  shall  have 
the  power  to  classify  employments  with  respect  to  their 
degree  of  hazard;  to  determine  the  amount  of  risk  to  same, 
based  upon  the  pay  roll  and  number  of  employer  in  each 
of  such  classes  of  employment  sufficiently  large  to  provide 
an  adequate  fund  for  the  compensation  provided  for  in 


120  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

the  act;  and  to  create  a  surplus  sufficiently  large  to  guar- 
antee a  satisfactory  insurance  fund  from  year  to  year. 

The  industrial  commission  may  increase  the  classifica- 
tion of  risks  and  premium  rates  of  an  establishment  or 
works  which  may  be,  by  reason  of  poor  or  careless  manage- 
ment, unduly  dangerous  in  comparison  with  other  like 
establishments  or  works. 

New  Hampshire. — The  employers  accepting  the  act  must  either 
satisfy  the  commissioner  of  labor  of  his  financial  ability  to 
comply  with  its  provisions  or  file  with  the  commissioner 
bonds  conditioned  on  the  discharge  by  such  employer  of 
all  liability  incurred  under  the  act. 
New  Jersey. — Insurance  not  compulsory. 

New  York. — Insurance  under  the  New  'fork  act  is  compulsory  in  some 
one  of  the  following  ways:  (1)  By  insuring  and  keeping  in- 
sured the  payment  of  such  compensation  in  the  State  fund,  or 
(2)  by  insuring  and  keeping  insured  the  payment  of  such  com- 
pensation with  any  stock  corporation  or  mutual  association 
authorized  to  transact  the  business  of  workmen's  compen- 
sation insurance  in  this  State.  If  insurance  be  so  effected  in 
such  a  corporation  or  mutual  association,  the  employer  shall 
forthwith  file  with  the  commission,  in  form  prescribed  by  it, 
a  notice  specifying  the  name  of  such  insurance  corporation 
or  mutual  association  together  with  a  copy  of  the  contract 
or  policy  of  insurance.  (3)  By  furnishing  satisfactory  proof 
to  the  commission  of  his  financial  ability  to  pay  such  com- 
pensation for  himself,  in  which  case  the  commission  may,  in 
its  discretion,  require  the  deposit  with  the  commission  of 
securities  of  the  kind  prescribed  in  section  13  of  the  insur- 
ance law,  in  an  amount  to  be  determined  by  the  commission, 
to  secure  his  liability  to  pay  the  compensation  provided  in 
this  chapter. 

If  an  employer  fail  to  comply  with  this  section,  he  shall  be 
liable  to  a  penalty  for  every  day  during  which  such  failure 
continues  of  $1  for  every  employee,  to  be  recovered  in  an 
action  brought  by  the  commission. 

The  commission  may,  in  its  discretion,  for  good  cause 
shown,  remit  any  such  penalty,  provided  the  employer  in 
default  secure  compensation  as  provided  in  this  section. 

Failure  to  secure  compensation  shall  have  the  effect  of 
enabling  the  injured  employee  or  his  dependents  to  maintain 
an  action  in  the  courts  for  damages  on  account  of  such  injury, 
and  in  such  action  the  defendant  may  not  plead  as  the  de- 
fense that  the  injury  was  caused  by  negligence  of  a  fellow 
servant,  or  that  the  employee  assumed  the  risk  of  his  employ- 
ment, or  that  his  injury  was  due  to  contributory  negligence 
of  the  employee. 

An  employer  contributing  to  the  State  fund  is  relieved 
from  all  liability  under  the  act,  and  the  persons  entitled  to 
compensation  shall  have  recourse  only  to  the  State  fund. 

An  employer  otherwise  insured  is  not  thereby  relieved  from 
liability  for  compensation,  and  a  person  entitled  to  compen- 
sation may  proceed  either  against  the  employer  or  insurance 
carrier. 


DIGEST   OF   STATE   LAWS.  121 

Every  policy  of  insurance  must  contain  a  provision  setting 
forth  the  right  of  the  compensation  commission  to  enforce  the 
policy  for  the  benefit  of  the  persons  entitled  to  the  compen- 
sation insured  by  the  policy. 

Every  policy  shall  contain  a  provision  that  as  between  the 
parties  to  or  knowledge  of  the  occurrence  of  the  injury  on 
the  part  of  the  employer  shall  be  deemed  notice  or  knowledge 
on  the  part  of  the  insurance  carrier,  and  the  insurance  carrier 
shall  in  all  things  be  bound  by  orders,  findings,  decisions,  or 
awards  rendered  against  the  employer. 

Every  policy  shall  contain  a  provision  to  the  effect  that 
the  insolvency  or  bankruptcy  of  the  employer  shall  not 
relieve  the  insurance  carrier  from  liability. 

A  State  insurance  fund  is  created  to  be  administered  by 
the  compensation  commission.  Ten  per  cent  of  the  premi- 
ums collected  from  the  employers  insured  in  the  fund  shall 
be  set  aside  by  the  commission  for  the  creation  of  a  surplus 
until  such  surplus  amounts  to  the  sum  of  $100,000,  and  there- 
after 5  per  cent  of  such  premiums  until  such  time  that,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  commission,  such  surplus  shall  be  sufficiently 
large  to  cover  the  catastrophe  hazard.  The  commission  shall 
also  set  up  and  maintain  a  reserve  adequate  to  meet  antici- 
pated losses  and  carry  all  claims  and  policies  to  maturity. 

The  entire  expense  of  the  administration  of  the  State  in- 
surance fund  shall  be  paid  in  the  first  instance  by  the  State 
out  of  moneys  appropriated  therefor.  All  expenses  so  in- 
curred by  the  State  shall  be  refunded  to  the  State  treasurer 
out  of  such  State  insurance  fund. 

The  workmen's  compensation  commission  shall  have  power 
to  rearrange  the  groups  of  industries,  determine  the  hazards 
of  the  different  classes,  and  fix  the  rates  of  premiums.  The 
commission  may  adopt  a  system  of  schedule  rating  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  take  account  of  the  peculiar  hazard  of  each 
individual  risk. 

Under  the  statute  authorizing  the  creation  of  mutual  com- 
panies these  companies  are  given  power  to  write  not  only 
compensation  risks,  but  also  insure  their  members  against 
public  liability.  These  associations  must  have  at  least  40 
members  and  2,500  employees. 

Ohio. — The  State  insurance  fund  is  created  and  insurance  in  such  fund 
is  compulsory.  The  State  liability  board  of  awards  is  re- 
quired to  classify  occupations  with  respect  to  their  degree 
of  hazard  and  determine  the  risks  of  the  different  classes  and 
fix  the  rates  of  premiums  for  the  risks  for  a  sum  sufficiently 
large  to  provide  an  adequate  fund  for  the  compensation  pro- 
vided for  under  the  act  and  to  maintain  the  State  insurance 
fund  from  year  to  year.  The  rate  of  premium  is  required  to 
be  the  lowest  possible  consistent  with  the  maintenance  of  a 
solvent  State  insurance  fund  and  the  creation  and  mainte- 
nance of  a  reasonable  surplus  for  the  payment  of  legitimate 
claims. 

The  board  is  required  to  keep  an  accurate  account  of  the 
money  paid  in  premiums  by  each  of  the  several  classes  of 
occupations  or  industries  and  the  disbursements  on  account 


122  WORKMEN  *S   COMPENSATION. 

of  injuries  and  deaths  of  employees  thereof;  and  is  also  re- 
quired to  keep  an  account  of  money  received  from  each  indi- 
vidual employer  and  the  amount  disbursed  from  the  State 
insurance  fund  on  account  of  injuries  and  death  of  the  em- 
ployees of  such  employer.  Ten  per  cent  of  the  money  here- 
tofore paid  into  the  State  insurance  fund  and  10  per  cent  of 
all  that  may  hereafter  be  paid  into  such  a  fund  shall  be  set 
aside  for  the  creation  of  a  surplus  until  such  surplus  shall 
amount  to  the  sum  of  $100,000,  after  which  time  the  sum  of 
5  per  cent  of  all  the  money  paid  into  the  State  insurance 
fund  shall  be  credited  to  such  surplus  fund  unless  such  sur- 
plus, in  the  judgment  of  the  board,  shall  be  sufficiently 
large  to  guarantee  the  State  insurance  fund  from  year  to 
year. 

Any  employer  who  neglects  to  comply  with  the  require- 
ments with  regard  to  insurance  is  made  liable  to  the  injured 
employee  for  full  damages  without  the  common-law  defenses, 
or  the  injured  employee,  at  his  option,  may  claim  compen- 
sation from  the  insurance  fund,  whereupon  such  fund  may 
recover  total  amount  of  its  liability,  with  50  per  cent  addi- 
tional as  a  penalty,  from  the  employer. 

Oregon. — The  State  insurance  fund  is  created  to  be  contributed  to  by 
the  employers  and  workmen  who  elect  to  accept  the  act. 
The  State  appropriated  $50,000  to  the  fund,  and  annually 
donates  one-seventh  of  the  total  amount  of  contributions. 

Every  employer  under  the  act  is  authorized  and  required 
to  retain  from  the  moneys  earned  by  each  of  his  workmen 
who  is  subject  to  the  act  a  sum  equal  to  five-tenths  of  1  per 
cent  of  the  moneys  so  earned  in  each  calendar  month,  and, 
in  any  event,  at  least  25  cents  each  month;  and  is  further 
required  to  pay  the  sum  so  retained  to  the  industrial  accident 
commission,  with  an  additional  sum  equal  to  six  times  such 
an  amount. 

Rhode  Island. — Insurance  not  compulsory. 

Texas. — Employers  accepting  the  act  are  required  to  insure  in  either 
the  Texas  Employers'  Insurance  Association,  created  under 
the  terms  of  the  compensation  act,  or  in  any  mutual  or  stock 
company.  Insurance  associations  or  companies  are  required 
to  file  with  the  commissioner  of  banking  and  insurance  classi- 
fication of  premiums,  none  of  which  shall  take  effect  until 
the  commissioner  of  banking  and  insurance  has  approved 
same  as  adequate  to  the  risks  to  which  they  respectively 
apply  and  not  higher  than  charged  by  the  Texas  Employers' 
Insurance  Association.  Mutual  companies  must  have  at 
least  50  subscriptions  and  not  less  than  2,000  employees. 

Washington. — The  State  insurance  fund  is  created,  to  which  all  em- 
ployers under  the  act  must  contribute.  The  statute  fixes 
the  premium  rates  for  each  group  of  industries  enumerated 
or  olirects  that  each  class  make  as  an  initial  payment  into  the 
accident  fund  one-fourth  of  the  premium  of  the  next  suc- 
ceeding year  and  one-twelfth  thereof  at  the  close  of  each 
month  after  1911,  with  the  proviso  that  any  class  having 
sufficient  funds  credited  to  its  account  at  the  end  of  the  first 


DIGEST   OP   STATE   LAWS.  123 

three  months  or  any  month  thereafter  to  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  accident  fund  shall  not  be  called  upon  for  such 
month. 

It  is  the  intent  that  the  fund  created  shall  ultimately 
become  neither  more  nor  less  self-supporting,  exclusive  of  the 
expense  of  administration. 

West  Virginia. — The  State  insurance  fund  is  created,  to  which  those 
who  accept  the  act  must  contribute.  The  commission  is 
given  power  to  determine  the  risk  of  the  different  classes 
and  fix  the  rates  of  premium  in  each  class  according  to  the 
risks  of  the  same,  to  provide  an  adequate  fund  for  the  com- 
pensation required  under  the  act,  and  to  create  a  surplus 
sufficiently  large  to  guarantee  a  workmen's  compensation 
fund  from  year  to  year,  with  the  proviso  that  the  rates  so 
fixed  shall  not  exceed  a  maximum  of  $1  on  each  $100  of  the 
gross  annual  pay  roll  of  each  employer  in  any  class.  The 
premiums  of  the  State  fund  are  contributed  to  in  the  pro- 
portion of  90  per  cent  by  the  employers  and  10  per  cent 
by  the  employees. 

Wisconsin. — The  employers  accepting  the  act  are  required  to  insure 
payment  of  the  compensation  in  either  a  stock  or  mutual 
company  authorized  to  do  business  in  the  State,  unless 
exempted  from  such  insurance  by  the  industrial  commis- 
sion. The  commission  may  make  such  exemption  upon 
proof  by  the  employer  as  to  his  financial  ability  to  pay 
compensation,  which  provision  may  be  revoked  upon  10 
days'  notice  in  writing.  Every  insurance  company  doing 
business  within  the  State  shall  file  with  the  industrial  com- 
mission its  classifications  of  risks  and  rates  of  premium 
relating  thereto.  Discrimination  between  insured  having 
risks  in  the  same  class  and  degree  of  hazard  by  the  granting 
of  any  rebate  or  deduction  in  such  rate  of  premium,  or  by 
any  change  of  classification  for  the  purpose  of  granting  such 
deduction,  or  in  any  other  manner,  is  forbidden.  Any 
employer  against  whom  liability  may  exist  for  compensa- 
tion may,  with  the  approval  of  the  industrial  commis- 
sion, be  relieved  therefrom  by  either  depositing  the  present 
value  of  the  total  unpaid  compensation  for  which  such 
liability  exists  or  by  the  purchase  of  an  annuity. 


NO.  2.  RULES  ADOPTED  BY  STATE  BOARDS  OR  COMMISSIONS. 

Under  the  statutes  creating  the  special  boards  charged  with  the 
duties  of  administering  the  law  the  boards  are  given  power  to  make 
rules  for  the  enforcement  of  such  laws.  The  various  boards  have 
adopted  rules  pursuant  to  such  authority,  and  the  following  rules 
are  published  as  illustrating  the  extent  to  which  this  authority 
aids  the  State  boards  or  commissions  in  bringing  about  prompt  and 
inexpensive  adjustments  and  fair  dealing  between  employer  and 
employee : 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

RULE  No.  1. —  Manner  of  giving  notice  by  employer  of  acceptance  of 

the  act. 

If  personal  service  is  not  made  of  the  notices  required  by  sections 
20  and  21  of  Part  IV,  chapter  751  of  the  acts  of  1911,  and  the  amend- 
ments thereto,  said  notices  may  be  given  by  posting  the  same  at  one 
or  more  of  the  principal  entrances  to  the  factory,  shop,  or  place 
of  business  of  the  employer  and  in  each  room  where  labor  is  employed, 
said  notices  to  be  printed  or  typewritten. 

Supplement  to  rule  1. — It  has  been  represented  to  the  industrial 
accident  board  that  it  is  possible  that  employees  may  be  engaged 
for  labor  away  from  the  office  or  headquarters  of  the  subscriber,  or 
may  be  employed  in  more  than  one  place  or  office,  and  that  in  these 
cases  personal  notice  is  not  always  possible  or  practical.  To  meet 
this  situation  the  board  has  passed  the  following  supplement  to 
rule  No.  1 : 

Where  the  same  employees  are  employed  in  more  than  one  room 
in  a  building,  or  in  various  places,  or  where  employers  are  engaged 
in  such  business  as  that  of  managing  office  buildings,  and  personal 
service  of  the  notices  required  by  sections  20  and  21,  Part  IV,  chap- 
ter 751  of  the  acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto,  is  not  made, 
said  notices  can  be  served  by  posting  the  same  at  one  or  more  of 
the  principal  entrances  to  each  building  so  managed  or  where  labor 
is  employed,  or  by  posting  the  same  in  a  conspicuous  place  near 
any  time  clock  or  other  registering  device  which  employees  in  any 
such  building  are  required  to  use,  or  by  posting  the  same  at  the 
entrance  to  the  office  of  the  janitor  of  said  building,  or  by  posting 
the  same  at  the  place  where  the  employee  is  hired. 

RULE  No.  2. —  Manner  of  giving  notice  by  employee  to  employer. 

In  each  instance  the  notice  shall  be  served  upon  the  employer,  or 
upon  one  employer  if  there  are  more  employers  than  one,  or  upon 
any  officer  or  agent  of  a  corporation  if  the  employer  is  a  corporation, 
by  delivering  the  same  to  the  person  on  whom  it  is  to  be  served,  or 
by  leaving  it  at  his  residence  or  place  of  business,  or  by  sending  it 
124 


BULES    OF    STATE    BOARDS.  125 

by  registered  mail  addressed  to  the  person  or  corporation  on  whom 
it  is  to  be  served,  at  his  last  known  residence  or  place  of  business. 
(Sec.  5,  Part  I,  ch.  751,  of  the  acts  of  1911,  and  amendments 
thereto.) 

RULE  No.  3. — Report  of  accidents  ~by  association  or  insurance  companies 

to  the  board. 

That  the  association  and  liability  insurance  companies  report  to 
it  all  accidents  within  five  days  after  receipt  of  notice  thereof  by  them 
from  any  subscriber,  by  sending  to  the  industrial  accident  board  a 
list  or  brief  statement  of  the  same. 

RULE  No.  4. — Additional  copy  of  employee's  claim  for  compensation 
to  be  sent  to  insurance  association  or  company. 

An  employee  making  a  claim  for  compensation  under  this  act  shall 
furnish  the  association  or  insurance  company  against  whom  said 
claim  is  made  with  a  copy  thereof  by  mail  or  otherwise  forthwith, 
upon  the  filling  of  the  same  with  the  industrial  accident  board.  This 
rule  shall  be  without  prejudice  to  any  rights  acquired  by  the  filing  of 
said  claim  with  the  ooard  under  the  provisions  of  Part  II,  section 
23,  chapter  751,  of  the  acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto,  or 
by  other  provisions  of  said  act. 

RULE  No.  5. — Insurance  association  and  companies  to  notify  indus- 
trial accident  board  of  employers  who  insure  or  cease  to  insure. 

That  the  insurance  association  and  all  liability  insurance  compa- 
nies shall  notify  the  industrial  accident  board  of  the  names  and  ad- 
dresses of  all  employers  who  insure  then*  liability  under  the  work- 
men's compensation  act,  notice  to  be  given  forthwith  upon  the  issu- 
ance of  such  insurance  and  a  further  notice  to  be  given  when  employers 
cease  to  be  so  insured. 

RULE  No.  6. — Agreements  between  the  insurer  and  employee. 

Every  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  under  this  act  is  sub- 
ject to  approval  by  the  industrial  accident  board,  and  a  memorandum 
of  the  same  mast  be  filed  with  the  board,  whether  said  agreement  is 
written  or  oral,  and  whether  it  is  made  by  one  or  both  parties,  or  in 
the  form  of  a  receipt.  Any  weekly  payment  or  settlement  under  the 
act,  whether  purporting  to  be  final  or  otherwise,  may  be  reviewed  by 
the  board.  (Sec.  20,  Part  II,  and  sees.  4  and  12,  Part  III,  ch. 
751,  of  the  acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto,  and  rule  adopted 
by  the  board.) 

"  The  above  paragraph  of  this  rule  shall  be  written  or  printed  at 
the  head  of  every  agreement  regarding  compensation,  and  of  every 
receipt  taken  by  the  insurer  from  the  employee. 

RULE  No.  7. — Employer  to  file  notice  of  insurance  with  ike  board. 

Every  employer  shall  file  with  the  industrial  accident  board  a  copy 
of  the  form  of  notice,  including  the  signature  thereto,  which  he  has 
given  to  his  employees  that  he  has  insured  under  this  act. 


126  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

RULE  No.  8. — Employer  to  notify  employees  of  change  of  insurer. 

Every  employer  shall  notify  his  employees  of  any  change  of  insurer 
by  serving  or  posting  a  new  " notice  to  employees/'  stating  the  name 
of  the  new  insurance  company  or  association  insuring  his  liability 
under  this  act,  and  filing  a  copy  of  such  notice  with  the  industrial 
accident  board. 

MICHIGAN. 
RULE  1. —  What  accidents  to  le  reported. 

All  accidents  which  result  in  disability  continuing  for  more  than 
one  full  working  day  shall  be  reported  to  the  board;  all  accidents 
involving  the  loss  of  a  member  shall  be  so  reported  irrespective  of 
the  question  of  disabilitv  resulting;  all  accidents  causing  death  shall 
be  reported  to  the  board. 

RULE  2. —  When  to  be  reported. 

All  employers  subject  to  the  compensation  law  shall  make  reports 
to  the  board  weekly  of  all  accidents  to  their  employees  which  come 
within  the  classes  of  accidents  designated  in  Rule  1.  Such  reports 
shall  be  on  and  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  weekly 
report  blank,  "Form  No.  5-a,"  of  said  board. 

RULE  3. — Fifteenth-day  report. 

In  all  cases  where  the  disability  resulting  to  the  injured  employee 
continues  for  more  than  14  days,  a  further  report,  on  and  in  accord- 
ance with  the  requirements  of  report  blank,  "Form  No.  6,"  shall  be 
made  to  the  board  on  the  15th  day  of  such  disability:  Provided,  That 
in  all  cases  where  the  accident  causes  the  loss  of  a  member  or  death, 
such  report  on  Form  No.  6  shall  be  made  to  the  board  within  10 
days  after  such  accident  or  such  death,  as  the  case  may  be. 

RULE  4. — Immediate  report  reguired. 

In  all  cases  where  a  claim  for  compensation  is  filed  with  the  board 
by  an  injured  employee,  if  it  appears  that  the  report  required  by 
Rule  3  has  not  been  made  and  rued  by  the  employer  on  account  of 
disagreement  as  to  the  continuance  of  the  disability  or  for  any  other 
reason,  the  board  shall  thereupon  require  such  employer  to  forth- 
with file  a  report  of  the  accident  on  and  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements  of  blank  Form  No.  6  of  said  board. 

RULE  5. —  Memorandum  agreement. 

When  an  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  is  made  between 
the  employer  and  the  injured  employee,  the  same  shall  be  in  writing 
on  and  in  accordance  with  Form  No.  10  of  the  board,  and  such  agree- 
ment, together  with  the  supplemental  report  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements  of  Form  No.  7,  shall  be  immediately  filed  with  the 
board. 


RULES   OF    STATE   BOARDS.  127 

RULE  6. — Supplemental  report. 

In  cases  where  the  employer  and  employee  fail  to  reach  an  agree- 
ment in  regard  to  compensation  and  either  of  such  parties  files  appli- 
cation with  the  board  for  arbitration  of  the  matter,  such  employer 
shall,  within  15  days  after  the  filing  of  such  application  for  arbitration, 
make  and  file  with  the  board  a  supplemental  report  of  the  accident 
on  and  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  Form  No.  7  of  said 
board. 

RULE  7. — Receipts  for  compensation. 

After  an  agreement  relating  to  compensation  is  made  between  the 
employer  and  the  injured  employee,  and  approved  by  the  board; 
ana  also  in  cases  where  an  application  for  arbitration  has  been  filed 
and  an  award  of  compensation  made  by  the  board,  receipts  for 
weekly  payments  of  compensation  made  upon  Form  No.  11,  signed 
by  such  employee  or  his  dependents,  shall  be  filed  in  the  office  of  the 
board  monthly. 

RULE  8. —  Final  report. 

When  the  disability  of  the  injured  employee  terminates;  and  also 
when  the  payment  of  compensation  for  the  loss  of  a  member,  or  in 
case  of  death,  has  been  fully  made,  final  report  thereof  shall  be  filed 
with  the  board,  on  and  in  accordance  with  Form  No.  7-a,  together 
with  settlement  receipt  on  and  in  accordance  with  Form  No.  12, 
signed  by  the  employee  or  his  dependents,  as  the  case  may  be. 

RULE  9. 

Wherever   the  word  "employer"  is  used  in  the  foregoing  rules, 
numbered  from  1  to  8,  inclusive,  it  shall  be  construed  to  cover  either 
the  employer,  or  the  insurance  company  carrying  the  risk,  or  the 
Commissioner  of  Insurance,  as  the  case  may  be. 
Adopted  October  9,  1912.     Lansing,  Mich. 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 
R.  L.  DRAKE,  Secretary. 

CALIFORNIA. 

The  following  rules  shall  go  into  immediate  effect  under  the  pro- 
visions of  chapter  399,  Laws  1911,  and  shall  govern  in  any  matter  or 
proceeding  relating  to  the  administration  of  said  act  by  the  industrial 
accident  board. 

RULE  I. — Preliminary. 

Chapter  399,  Laws  1911,  may  be  cited  as  the  "Employers'  liability 
act/'  and  these  rules  as  the  "Industrial  accident  board  rules."  All 
words  and  phrases  used  in  these  rules  shall  have  the  same  meaning  as 
is  given  to  the  same  words  and  phrases  in  sections  3  to  31  of  the  em- 
ployers' liability  act. 


128  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

RULE  II. — Office  of  industrial  accident  board. 

Office  shall  be  open  during  such  hours  as  are  fixed  by  law  for  the 
transaction  of  public  business.  The  board  may  from  time  to  time 
hold  public  sessions  in  such  other  places  in  the  State  as  convenience 
may  require. 

RULE  III. — Posting  of  notices. 

Employers  shall  immediately  post,  and  keep  posted,  all  notices 
required  to  be  posted  by  the  industrial  accident  board  in  conspicuous 
places  in  their  offices  and  works  where  such  notices  are  most  likely 
to  be  seen  and  read  by  their  employees. 

RULE  IV. — Reports. 

Employers  and  physicians  attending  injured  employees  shall, 
within  10  days  after  the  happening  of  an  accident  causing  a  loss  of 
industrial  time  lasting  more  than  one  week,  make  a  full  report  thereof 
to  the  industrial  accident  board.  In  any  case  where  a  compromise 
of  liability  for  accident  is  made  directly  by  the  employer  and  em- 
ployees, a  full  report  of  such  compromise  shall  be  immediately  made 
by  the  employer  to  the  industrial  accident  board. 

RULE  V. — Parties  to  proceedings. 

When  a  controversy  arises  concerning  any  matter  over  which  the 
industrial  accident  board  has  jurisdiction,  any  party  to  the  contro- 
versy may  apply  to  the  board  for  relief.  The  party  making  such 
application  shall  be  known  as  the  "  applicant."  All  other  persons 
necessary  to  enable  the  board  effectively  and  completely  to  adjudi- 
cate upon  and  settle  all  questions  involved  shall  be  made  parties  to 
the  application  and  shall  oe  known  as  the  "  respondents." 

An  application  on  behalf  of  the  dependents  of  a  deceased  workman 
for  the  settlement  of  a  controversy  may  be  made  by  the  legal  per- 
sonal representatives  (if  any)  of  the  deceased  workman  on  behalf  of 
such  dependents  or  by  the  dependents  themselves.  All  such  de- 
pendents shall  be  joined  in  the  application  either  as  applicants  or 
respondents. 

An  application  for  the  settlement  of  a  controversy  respecting 
medical  attendance  or  the  burial  expense  of  a  workman  who  leaves 
no  dependents  shall  be  made  by  the  legal  representatives  (if  any)  of 
the  deceased  workman.  If  there  are  no  such  personal  representa- 
tives, the  application  may  be  made  by  any  creditor  to  whom  any 
such  expenses  are  due,  and  all  other  such  creditors  known  to  the  ap- 
plicant must  be  joined  as  respondents.  If  the  amount  awarded  is 
not  sufficient  for  the  payment  of  such  expenses  in  full,  it  shall  be 
divided  in  proportion  to  the  respective  amounts  found  to  be  due. 

RULE  VI. — Joinder  of  parties. 

All  persons  may  be  joined  as  applicants  in  whom  any  right  to  any 
relief  in  respect  oJ  or  arising  out  of  the  same  transaction  or  series  of 
transactions  is  alleged  to  exist. 

All  persons  may  be  joined  as  respondents  against  whom  the  right 
to  any  relief  is  alleged  to  exist,  whether  jointly,  severally,  or  in  the 


RULES    OF    STATE   BOARDS.  129 

alternative,  and  the  board  will  of  its  own  motion  order  that  any  ad- 
ditional party  or  parties  be  joined,  when  it  deems  their  presence 
necessary. 

RULE  VII. — Pleadings. 

(1)  Application. — The  applicant  shall  file  a  written  application 
for  relief  with  the  industrial  accident  board,  containing  the  names  of 
all  parties,  a  general  statement  of  the  claim  in  controversy,  the  facts 
relating  thereto,  and  of  the  relief  sought  to  be  obtained.     The  board 
will  thereupon  fix  a  time  and  place  for  the  hearing  thereof,  which 
shall  not  be  more  than  40  days   after  such  filing  and  will  serve  a 
copy  of  such  application,  together  with  the  notice  of  hearing,  upon 
each  adverse  party.     Either  party  shall  have  the  right  to  be  present 
at  any  hearing,  in  person  or  by  attorney  or  any  other  agent,  and 
present  such  testimony  as  shall  be  pertinent  to  the  controversy. 

(2)  Answer. — When  any  respondent  desires  to  disclaim  any  interest 
in  the  subject  matter  of  the  claim  in  controversy,  or  considers  that 
the  application  is  in  any  respect  inaccurate  or  incomplete,  or  desires 
to  bring  any  fact,  paper,  or  document  to  the  attention  of  the  board 
as  a  defense  to  the  claim  or  otherwise,  he  must,  within  10  days  after 
the  service  of  the  application,  file  with  or  mail  to  the  board  his  answer, 
setting  forth  the  particulars  in  which  the  application  is  inaccurate  or 
incomplete  and  the  facts  upon  which  he  intends  to  rely.     A  copy 
thereof  must  likewise  be  served  upon  each  party  to  the  proceedings. 
Any  material  allegation  contained  in  the  application  and  not  con- 
troverted in  the  answer  will  be  deemed  to  be  admitted. 

RULE  VIII. — Service  of  pleadings. 

Any  pleading  or  document  may  be  served  either  by  delivering  to 
and  leaving  with  the  person  to  be  served  a  copy  thereof,  or  by  mailing 
to  such  person,  by  United  States  registered  mail,  a  copy  thereof  in  a 
sealed  envelope,  with  the  postage  thereon  fully  prepaid,  addressed 
to  such  person  at  his  last  known  place  of  business  or  residence. 

Where  a  pleading  or  document  is  served  by  mail,  it  shall,  unless  the 
contrary  be  proved,  be  deemed  to  have  been  served  at  the  time  when 
the  letter  containing  the  same  would  have  been  delivered  in  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  post.  Proof  of  such  mailing  shall  be  prima  facie  proof 
of  service. 

RULE  IX. — Awards. 

An  award  may  be  rendered  in  favor  of  or  against  any  one  or  more 
of  the  applicants  or  respondents,  according  to  their  respective  rights 
and  liabilities.  In  every  award  the  compensation  to  be  paid  to  each 
person  shall  be  set  forth  separately. 

RULE  X. — Examiner. 

^  Whenever  convenience  may  require,  the  industrial  accident  board 
will  appoint  an  examiner,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  aid  the  board  in 
making  settlements  between  employers  and  employees,  conduct  in- 
vestigations, take  testimony,   and  to  make  report  of  any  and  all 
30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2 9 


130  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

matters  relating  to  the  claim  in  controversy  to  the  board.  The 
board  may  at  any  time,  and  with  or  without  notice  to  either  party, 
cause  testimony  to  be  taken,  or  any  other  investigation  to  be  made. 

RULE  XI. — Depositions. 

Depositions  may  be  taken  before  any  notary  public  or  other  officer 
authorized  to  administer  oaths,  and,  when  so  taken,  used  upon  any 
hearing  where  the  convenience  of  the  witnesses  requires.  Such 
depositions  shah1  be  taken  upon  notice  in  the  same  manner  as  in 
courts  of  record. 

RULE  XII. — Stenographic  reporter. 

Either  party  may,  upon  payment  of  the  costs  attendant  thereon, 
require  that  the  testimony  produced  at  any  hearing  be  taken  down 
and  transcribed  by  a  shorthand  reporter. 

RULE  XIII. — Amendments. 

The  board,  or  any  member  thereof,  may  at  any  time,  with  or 
without  notice,  upon  good  cause  shown,  permit  any  amendment 
to  any  pleading  or  open  up  any  default. 

The -board  may  amend  or  modify  or  vacate  any  order  or  award 
upon  motion  of  either  party  or  upon  its  own  motion.  The  moving 
party  shah1  serve  upon  all  other  parties  to  the  proceeding  a  notice 
of  such  motion  five  days  prior  to  the  time  when  the  same  is  to  be 
heard,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  board  or  a  member  thereof. 

RULE  XIV. — Extension  of  time. 

The  board,  or  anv  member  thereof,  may,  either  with  or  without 
notice,  grant  extensions  of  time  within  which  to  comply  with  any 
rule  upon  good  cause  shown,  and  may  likewise  grant  adjournments 
of  hearings. 

RULE  XV. — Stipulations. 

Parties  to  a  controversy  may  stipulate  the  facts  in  writing,  and 
the  board  may  thereupon  make  its  order  or  award  based  upon  such 
stipulation. 

RULE  XVI. — Exceptions. 

At  any  hearing  had  before  the  board,  or  before  any  examiner 
appointed  by  it,  a  note  shall  be  made  of  any  question  of  law  raised 
or  exception  taken  and  of  the  facts  in  evidence  in  relation  thereto. 

RULE  XVII. — Appeals. 

Any  party  aggrieved  may,  within  30  days  from  the  date  of  the 
award,  me  with  the  industrial  accident  board  an  application,  in  writ- 
ing, for  a  review  of  such  award,  stating  generally  the  grounds  upon 
which  a  review  is  sought,  the  points  upon  which  he  relies,  and  the 
facts  in  evidence  relating  thereto.  A  copy  of  such  application  shall 


RULES   OF    STATE   BOARDS.  131 

at  the  same  time  be  served  by  the  appellant  upon  all  adverse  parties. 
The  adverse  party  or  parties  may,  within  10  days  thereafter,  file 
with  the  board  an  answer  to  such  application  for  review,  stating 
generally  his  objections,  his  points,  and  the  facts  in  evidence  in  rela- 
tion thereto.  The  board  will  thereupon  prepare  and  certify  a  tran- 
script of  the  testimony  taken  and  transmit  the  same,  together  with 
all  documents  and  papers  on  file  in  the  matter,  to  the  superior  court. 
It  is  hereby  ordered  that  the  foregoing  rules  be,  and  the  same  are, 
adopted  as  the  rules  governing  the  industrial  accident  board,  and  for 
the  regulation  of  practice,  and  that  the  same  go  into  effect  forthwith. 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

A.  J.  PILLSBURY,  Chairman. 
WILL  J.  FRENCH. 
WILLIS  I.  MORRISON. 
AARON  L.  SAPIRO,  Secretary. 
SAN  FRANCISCO,  October  25,  1911. 

OHIO. 

|As  amended  Oct.  6,  1912.] 

RULE  1. — Office  hours. 
[Relates  to  office  hours  of  the  board.] 

RULE  2. — Sessions  of  the  board. 

Sessions  of  the  board  will  be  held  regularly  at  the  office  of  the  board 
in  the  city  of  Columbus,  beginning  at  10  a.  m.  of  each  business  day, 
and  continuing  until  the  business  of  the  day  is  completed;  provided, 
that  the  sessions  may  be  held  at  any  other  place  within  the  State 
should  the  business  to  be  transacted  seem  to  require  it. 

RULE  3. — Forms  prescribed. 

Printed  forms  of  all  notices,  applications,  proofs,  certificates,  etc., 
necessary  for  perfecting  any  claim  before  the  board  will  be  furnished 
free  of  cnarge  by  the  board.  Such  forms  must  be  used  in  all  cases. 

RULE  4. — Injury  not  resulting  in  death,  notice  of. 

An  employee  who  has  been  injured  in  the  course  of  his  employment 
and  who  contemplates  filing  an  application  for  an  award,  shall,  within 
one  week  from  receiving  such  injury,  notify  or  cause  notice  to  be  given 
the  board  of  the  time,  place,  and  nature  of  his  injury  and  the  name 
of  his  employer.  Forms  of  such  notices  can  be  obtained  from  the 
employer.  Such  notices  should  be  mailed  to  "  State  liability  board 
of  awards,  Columbus,  Ohio." 

Upon  receiving  such  notice  the  board  forthwith  will  mail  to  the 
injured  employee  proper  forms  and  blanks  for  his  use  in  perfecting 
his  claim,  and  notify  the  employer  thereof.  Unless  such  notice  is 
given,  no  appli cation  for  an  award  will  be  considered  by  the  board. 


132  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

RULE  5. — Injury  resulting  in  death,  notice  of. 

When  death  results  from  an  injury  received  by  an  employee  in  the 
course  of  his  employment,  the  provisions  of  rule  4  shall  apply,  except 
that  notice  of  death  must  be  given  by  the  attending  physician,  under- 
taker, employer,  executor,  administrator,  or  a  beneficiary,  within  one 
week  from  tne  time  of  death. 

RULE  6. — Docketing  and  numbering. 

Notices  provided  for  by  rules  4  and  5  shall  be  numbered  when 
received  by  the  board  and  entered  upon  a  docket  kept  for  the  pur- 
pose, and  each  paper  thereafter  filed  in  connection  with  the  claim 
shall  be  given  the  same  number  as  the  original  notice. 

RULE  7. — Application — Injury. 

Application  for  awards  in  all  cases  of  injury  not  resulting  in  death 
must  be  made  by  the  party  injured  not  less  than  two  weeks  nor  more 
than  three  months  after  the  injury  is  received.  Where  the  applicant 
claims  money  to  pay  for  medical  and  hospital  services  or  medicines, 
he  shall  authorize  the  payment  to  be  made  directly  to  the  person  or 
persons  rendering  such  services,  etc.,  in  all  cases  where  he  has  not 
already  paid  for  the  same. 

RULE  8. — Failure  to  make  application. 

In  all  cases  of  injury  where  medical  services,  etc.,  have  been  ren- 
dered and  furnished  to  the  injured  employee,  and  such  injured  em- 
ployee fails  or  neglects  to  make  application  for  money  to  pay  for  the 
same  within  the  time  prescribed  by  rule  7,  or  having  made  application 
and  an  award  for  such  medical  services,  etc.,  having  been  made, 
payable  to  the  applicant,  and  the  applicant  is  not  found  at  the  address 
given  in  his  application  within  30  days  after  the  making  of  the  award, 
the  money  may  be  paid  by  the  board,  upon  a  satisfactory  showing  of 
the  reasonableness  thereof,  to  the  person  or  persons  rendering  said 
services,  etc. 

RULE  9. —  Waiver  of  right  to  compensation. 

In  all  cases  of  injury  where  the  preliminary  notice  provided  for  by 
rule  4  hereof  has  been  given,  and  no  application  for  compensation  has 
been  made  within  the  time  provided  by  rule  7  hereof,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  clerk  to  notify  the  injured  person  by  mail  at  his  last  known 
residence  of  his  noncompliance  with  said  rule  7,  inclosing  him  a  copy 
thereof,  and  should  no  application  be  filed  within  two  weeks  after  the 
mailing  of  such  notice,  the  board  may  consider  that  such  injured 
person  has  waived  the  right  of  compensation  and  make  a  finding 
accordingly. 

RULE  10. — Application — Death. 

Application  for  awards  in  all  cases  of  injury  resulting  in  death 
must  be  made  by  the  executor,  administrator,  or  beneficiary  of  the 
deceased,  or  by  the  attending  physician,  or  undertaker  where  there  is 
no  beneficiary,  not  less  than  two  weeks  nor  more  than  six  months 
after  the  death  of  the  injured  employee. 


RULES    OF    STATE    BOARDS.  133 

RULE  1 1 . —  Modification  of  rules. 

The  provisions  of  rules  4,  5,  7  and  8  will  not  be  relaxed,  unless,  in 
the  judgment  of  the  board,  the  failure  to  observe  their  provisions 
was  occasioned  by  want  of  knowledge  of  their  existence,  and  unless 
their  strict  enforcement  will  result  in  hardship  and  injustice.  In 
such  instances  the  board  will,  upon  application,  extend  the  time  for 
filing. 

RULE  12.— Proof. 

The  proof  of  all  claims  shall  be  made  by  affidavit  as  far  as  possible. 
Bu  the  board  will,  if  in  its  judgment  it  is  deemed  necessary,  require 
medical  or  other  examinations  and  may  take  oral  testimony  of  wit- 
nesses, the  claimant  being  notified  of  the  time,  place,  and  manner  of 
taking  the  same.  The  board  will  also  hear  any  oral  testimony  offered 
by  an  applicant.  Depositions  of  witnesses  may  also  be  filed  by  an 
applicant,  but  notice  of  the  time  and  place  of  taking  the'  same  must 
be  given  the  board  prior  to  their  taking.  Any  duly  authorized 
inspector  of  the  board  shall  have  the  right  at  any  time  either  before 
or  after  an  award  to  make  an  investigation  as  to  the  cause  and  extent 
of  the  injury  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  facts.  The  proof  in 
every  instance  shall  be  such  as  to  show  clearly  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
board,  the  rights  of  the  applicant  to  an  award,  and  the  amount  thereof. 

RULE  13. —  Medical  examination,  refusal  to  submit  to. 

In  case  the  board,  or  its  chief  medical  examiner,  orders  an  injured 
employee  to  submit  to  examination  by  its  local  medical  examiner, 
and  such  examination  is  refused,  or  shall  in  any  way  be  obstructed, 
his  right  to  have  his  claim  for  compensation  considered  shall  be 
barred  during  the  period  of  such  refusal  or  obstruction. 

RULE  14. — Employee's  intention  to  leave  locality,  notice  to  be  given  of. 

An  injured  employee  who  desires  to  leave  the  locality  in  which  he 
has  been  employed,  during  treatment  of  his  injury,  and  goes  into 
another  locality  of  the  State,  or  into  another  State,  shall  either  report 
to  the  local  medical  examiner  of  the  board  for  examination,  or  notify 
the  board  of  such  intention  to  leave,  and  send  them  with  such  notice 
a  certificate  from  the  attending  physician,  which  shall  state  the  exact 
nature  of  the  injury,  together  with  the  length  of  time  of  disability 
present. 

RULE  15. — Physician's  reports,  refusal  to  fill  out. 

In  case  an  attending  physician  refuses  to  fill  out  an  attending 
physician's  report  or  itemize  his  physician's  fee  bill,  or  make  affidavit 
to  the  same,  on  his  claim  for  medical  services  rendered  an  injured 
applicant,  his  claim  for  medical  services  shall  not  be  considered 
during  the  period  of  such  refusal. 


134  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

RULE  16.— Duty  of  cleric. 

The  clerk  shall  keep  a  record  of  the  time  of  filing  all  notices,  appli- 
cations, affidavits,  statements,  depositions,  medical  and  other  forms 
of  proof,  and  when  the  proof  is  seemingly  complete  shall  assign  the 
same  for  hearing.  He  shall  prepare  a  list  of  the  claims  so  assigned 
for  each  hearing  day,  which  shall  contain  an  abstract  of  the  proof  on 
the  questions  necessary  to  be  determined  by  the  board,  and  such 
other  information  as  he  may  deem  necessary  to  include  therein,  and 
shall  provide  a  copy  of  such  list  for  each  member  of  the  board  and 
for  the  secretary.  Such  original  lists  shall  be  preserved  by  him  and 
filed  in  his  office  with  the  papers  in  the  claims  to  which  they  refer. 

RULE  17. — Hearings. 

Applications  for  awards  will  be  heard  on  Mondays,  Wednesdays, 
and  Fridays  of  each  week,  unless  one  of  such  days  should  be  a  legal 
holiday,  in»  which  event  the  day  following  will  be  the  hearing  day. 
Applicants  may  appear  before  the  board  either  in  person  or  by  agent 
or  attorney.  If  no  appearance  is  made,  the  application  will  be 
heard  and  disposed  of  upon  the  proofs  on  file,  if  sufficient,  or  may  be 
continued  until  a  future  day,  or  indefinitely,  for  attendance  of  appli- 
cant or  counsel,  or  for  the  furnishing  of  further  proof. 

RULE  18. — Notice  of  hearings. 

When  the  clerk  assigns  an  application  for  hearing  he  shall  forth- 
with give  the  applicant  notice  by  postal  card  of  the  time  and  place 
of  hearing,  and  at  least  three  days  shall  elapse  between  the  date  of 
mailing  such  notice  and  the  date  of  the  hearing,  unless  the  claim  to 
be  heard  involves  only  a  claim  for  medical  services,  medicines,  or 
hospital  services,  hi  which  event  no  notice  of  the  tune  and  place  of 
hearing  need  be  given.  But  the  right  to  notice  as  provided  herein 
may  be  waived  by  the  applicant  at  the  time  of  filing  nis  application; 
and  if  waived,  the  claim  will  be  heard  as  soon  as  may  be  after  the 
completion  of  the  proof. 

RULE  19. — Awards. 

Ali  awards  other  than  for  medical,  nurse,  and  hospital  service  and 
for  funeral  expenses  will  be  payable  in  biweekly  installments,  and 
will  be  paid  directly  to  the  applicant  or  beneficiary  in  all  cases  except 
where  such  applicant  or  beneficiary  is  an  infant  of  tender  years,  or 
under  some  legal  disability,  in  which  event  the  award  will  be  paid 
as  provided  by  the  general  code,  sections  1465-1468  (sec.  29  of  the  act), 
for  the  payment  of  benefits  in  case  of  death. 

In  case  of  temporary  disability  or  partial  impairment  of  earning 
capacity,  the  board,  at  the  time  of  making  the  award,  will  fix  a  time 
at  which  payments  shall  cease,  unless  the  injured  employee  shall 
make  it  appear  to  the  board  that  he  is  still  incapacitated  as  a  result 
of  the  injury  for  which  the  award  was  originally  made.  In  such 
case  a  modification  of  the  terms  of  the  original  award  will  be  made. 

RULE  20. — -Payment  of  lump  sums. 

Payment  of  awards  in  lump  sums  will  be  made  only  when,  in  a 
supplemental  proceeding,  it  is  made  to  appear  to  the  board  that  it 
would  be  to  the  mutual  advantage  of  the  applicant  or  beneficiaries 
and  to  the  State  insurance  fund. 


EULES   OF   STATE   BOARDS.  135 

RULE  21. — Continuance. 

The  policy  of  the  board  will  be  to  determine  all  questions  brought 
before  it  as  speedily  as  possible;  but  continuances  of  hearings  for 
any  reasonable  cause  may  be  had  upon  the  request  of  the  applicant. 

The  board  will  continue  hearings  on  its  own  motion  only  when  the 
volume  of  business  is  such  as  to  demand  it,  or  when  the  proof  is  not 
satisfactory  or  is  insufficient. 

RULE  22. —  Modification  of  awards. 

The  board,  having  continuing  power  and  jurisdiction  over  an 
award,  may  make  changes  or  modifications  of  its  former  findings, 
either  upon  its  own  motion  or  upon  the  application  of  the  beneficiary 
or  beneficiaries.  If  on  its  own  motion,  it  must  first  notify  the 
beneficiary  or  beneficiaries.  Upon  application  being  made  for  a 
modification  of  an  award,  it  shall  be  docketed  and  set  for  hearing 
as  in  the  case  of  original  applications. 

RULE  23. — Change  in  rules. 

The  rules  of  the  board  are  subject  to  alterations  or  amendment  at 
any  time;  and  the  board  will  make  additional  rules  whenever,  in 
its  judgment,  the  same  are  necessary. 

The  rule  of  rating. 

[Resolution.] 

Be  it  resolved,  That  in  pursuance  of  authority  conferred  upon  the 
State  Liability  Board  of  Awards  by  section  17  of  an  act  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  Ohio  entitled  "An  act  to  create  a  state  insurance 
fund  for  the  benefit  of  the  injured  and  the  dependents  of  killed  em- 
ployees, and  to  provide  for  the  administration  of  such  fund  by  a 
State  liability  board  of  awards/'  passed  May  31,  1911,  and  approved 
by  the  governor  June  i5,  1911  (102  O.  L.,  524,  General  Code,  sec. 
1465-53),  all  employments  or  industries  of  the  State  of  Ohio  are 
hereby  classified  according  to  their  respective  hazards,  and  rates  for 
the  several  classes  are  hereby  determined  and  fixed  in  accordance 
with  the  risks  of  the  same,  as  set  forth  in  the  following  schedules  and 
rules: 

The  determining  factors  in  fixing  the  rate  to  be  charged  an  indi- 
vidual industry  or  employment  employing  five  or  more  workmen  or 
operatives  shall  be  (a)  the  nature  of  the  employment,  (b)  its  casualty 
experience,  and  (c)  the  wage  expenditure  thereof.  The  use  of  these 
factors  shall  be  governed  by  the  rules  herein  set  forth: 

RULE  1. — Defining  injury. 

The  term  "injury"  used  herein  shall  include  every  personal  injury 
not  purposely  self-inflicted  which  has  been  sustained  (received)  by 
employees  in  the  course  of  their  employment  and  wherever  occurring, 
provided  such  injury  prevents  the  person  injured  from  returning  to 
his  or  her  employment  within  two  or  more  days  after  the  occurrence 
of  the  accident. 


136  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

RULE  2. — Preferred  risks. 

Employments  or  industries  showing  an  experience  of  10  or  fewer 
injuries  to  the  $100,000  of  wages  expended  shall  be  known  as  pre- 
ferred risks  of  tjieir  respective  classes  and  to  them  shall  be  applied 
the  rate  appearing  in  the  schedule  set  forth  under  rule  13  herein. 

RULE  3. — Experience  risks. 

Employments  or  industries  showing  an  experience  of  more  than  10 
injuries  to  the  $100,000  of  wages  expended  shall  be  known  as  ex- 
perience risks  and  the  rate  therefor  shall  be  ascertained  by  using  the 
printed  rate  fixed  for  preferred  risks  as  a  basis,  and  adding  3  per  cent 
thereof  thereto  for  each  injury  in  excess  of  10  to  the  $100,000  of 
wages  expended. 

RULE  4. — Death  or  total-disoMlity  risks. 

Employments  or  industries  whose  casualty  experience  includes  the 
death  or  permanent  total  disability  of  one  or  more  employees  as  the 
result  of  injuries  not  purposely  self-inflicted  and  which  have  been 
sustained  (received)  in  the  course  of  their  employment  wherever 
occurring,  shall  have  added  to  the  premium  for  each  six  months' 
period,  as  determined  by  rules  2  and  3,  20  per  cent  thereof  and  $25 
lor  each  such  death  or  permanent  total  disability  until  such  time  as 
the  sum  of  $2,000  has  been  paid  into  the  State  insurance  fund  for 
each  such  death  or  permanent  total  disability,  except  as  provided  in 
rule  6  herein. 

RULE  5. — Basis  of  average  experience. 

In  determining  the  rate  for  any  individual  employment  or  industry 
its  average  casualty  experience  shall  be  taken  as  a  basis  for  the  appli- 
cation of  the  preceding  rules  if  such  employment  or  industry  has 
been  in  operation  for  three  years. 

If  it  has  been  in  operation  for  more  than  six  months  and  less  than 
three  years,  then  the  experience  for  the  time  actually  in  operation 
shall  be  taken  as  a  basis. 

If  it  is  beginning  operations  or  has  been  in  operation  for  less  than 
six  months,  then  it  shall  be  entitled  to  the  rate  fixed  for  preferred 
risks  plus  25  per  cent  thereof. 

But  in  all  employments  or  industries  which  have  been  subscribers 
to  the  State  insurance  fund  continuously  for  one  year  or  longer,  the 
casualty  experience  as  shown  by  the  books  of  this  department  shall 
be  used  as  a  basis  in  determining  the  rate  to  be  charged. 

RULE  6. 

The  premium  of  an  employer  who  has  not  been,  a  subscriber  to  the 
State  insurance  fund  for  two  consecutive  semiannual  periods  and 
whose  experience  for  the  preceding  three  years  discloses  the  death 
or  permanent  total  disability  of  one  or  more  employees  as  the  result 
of  injuries  sustained  (received)  in  the  course  of  employment  and  not 
purposely  self-inflicted  and  wherever  occurring,  shall  be  computed 


EULES    OF    STATE    BOARDS.  137 

according  to  the  rules  herein,  except  rule  4,  and  there  shall  be  added 
thereto  20  per  cent  and  $25  for  one  death  or  permanent  total  disability 
as  disclosed  in  the  experience  as  herein  defined,  and  for  each  additional 
death  or  permanent  total  disability  10  per  cent  and  $25,  but  in  no- 
case  because  of  this  rule  shall  be  added  more  than  $4,000  for  any 
six  months'  period  for  any  single  industry  or  employment. 

RULE  7. — How  computed. 

The  premium  of  any  employment  or  industry  shall  be  computed 
upon  the  estimated  expenditure  of  wages  for  the  ensuing  period  of 
six  months,  and  an  adjustment  of  the  amount  actually  due  shall  be 
made  at  the  end  of  each  such  period  in  accordance  with  the  actual 
expenditure  of  wages. 

RULE  8. —  Minimum  premium. 
The  minimum  premium  shall  be  $15. 

RULE  9. —  Composite  rule. 

If  an  employer  conducts  more  than  one  kind  of  employment  or 
industry  on  the  same  premises,  then  each  employment  of  industry 
shall  have  its  respective  class  rating;  but  if  no  separate  record  is  kept 
showing  the  actual  wage  expenditure  of  each  employment  or  industry 
so  conducted,  then  upon  adjustment  of  actual  premium  at  the  end  of 
the  six  months'  period  the  entire  pay  roll  shall  be  rated  according  to 
the  highest  rate. 

RULE  10. — Clerical  and  office  rate. 

If  clerical  and  office  employees  pursue  their  employment  in  rooms 
or  apartments  separate  from  other  employees  engaged  in  more  haz- 
ardous employment,  then  that  part  of  the  wage  expenditure  for  such 
clerical  and  office  help  which  is  in  excess  of  10  per  cent  of  the  total 
wage  expenditure  shall  be  subject  to  the  clerical  and  office  schedule 
rates. 

RULE  11. —  What  wages  included. 

» 

The  wage  expenditure  upon  which  premium  is  computed  shall 
include  all  salary,  wages,  or  compensation  paid  to  all  employees, 
excluding  only  the  salary,  wages,  or  compensation  paid  to  employees 
engaged  wholly  as  traveling  salesmen  and  salaries  paid  to  officers  of 
corporations  as  such.  If  the  employer  is  a  partnership,  then  the 
salaries  or  wages  of  partners  shall  be  excluded. 

RULE  12. 

[Resolution  of  August  15,  1912.] 

The  rules  and  rates  herein  adopted  shall  be  subject  to  the  terms  of 
the  resolution  adopted  August  15,  1912,  which  is  hereby  reaffirmed 
and  made  a  part  hereof. 


NO.  3.    STATEMENT  TYPICAL  OF  METHODS   OF  ADMINISTRATION 
PURSUED  BY  STATE  BOARDS  OR  COMMISSIONS. 

WISCONSIN. 

Hon.  CYRUS  W.  PHILLIPS, 

Thirty-third  Floor,  Metropolitan  Tower, 

New  York  City. 

DEAR  SIR:  This  is  in  reply  to  yours  of  December  27. 

First.  The  Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin  administers  not 
only  the  compensation  act,  but  all  the  laws  having  to  do  with  the 
relation  of  employer  and  employee,  including  safety,  apprenticeship, 
arbitration  and  mediation,  free  employment,  child  lapor,  women's 
labor,  and  labor  statistics.  Second,  method  of  administration  of 
compensation  act:  We  require  the  employer  to  furnish  an  accident 
report  on  the  eighth  day  after  the  accident.  This  report  gives  in 
detail  the  facts  of  accident,  wage,  and  probable  period  of  disability. 
This  report  is  docketed,  and  a  subsequent  report  is  required  every 
four  weeks  during  disability.  These  subsequent  reports  show  what 
payments  are  made,  and  the  final  disposition  of  tne  case.  Subse- 
quent reports  are  made  by  insurance  companies  where  the  employer 
is  insured.  Employers  are  instructed  to  pay  compensation  according 
to  the  provisions  of  the  act,  and  when  disability  ceases  to  file  a  final 
receipt  with  the  commission.  The  accident  report  and  subsequent 
reports  are  scrutinized  in  the  office  in  order  to  determine  that  com- 
pensation is  paid  as  provided  by  law.  By  this  method  about  95  per 
cent  of  the  compensation  cases  are  taken  care  of  directly  between  the 
employer  and  employee  without  any  further  action  on  the  part  of  the 
commission.  We  find  the  method  gives  very  good  satisfaction  so  far 
as  the  workmen  are  concerned.  There  is  no  red  tape,  and  the  workmen 
get  their  compensation  promptly.  In  case  of  disagreement  between 
the  employer  and  workman  we  furnish  a  simple  form  of  application  for 
compensation  for  the  workman  to  fill  out.  He  fills  out  this  applica- 
tion and  sends  it  in  to  the  commission.  The  commission  serves  a 
copy  of  the  application  on  the  respondent  and  a  simple  form  of 
answer  is  furnished.  The  answer  is  to  be  made  in  five  days.  At  that 
time  the  case  is  set  for  hearing  at  some  point  convenient  to  the  par- 
ties. A  member  of  the  commission  or  one  of  its  deputies  takes  the 
testimony.  The  testimony  is  submitted  to  the  full  commission  at 
Madison  and  the  case  decided.  By  this  method  of  administration 
we  have  been  able  to  dispose  of  all  cases  promptly  and  at  a  minimum 
of  expense  to  the  State.  From  September  1,  1911,  to  November  1, 
1913,  compensation  was  completely  paid  in  5,627  cases;  of  this  num- 
ber, 142  were  heard  by  the  commission,  the  balance  of  the  cases  being 
settled  directly  between  the  employer  and  employee.  The  expense 
to  the  commission  for  the  administration  of  the  compensation  act, 
including  all  printing  and  postage,  from  September  1, 1911,  to  Decem- 
ber 31,  1913,  inclusive,  is  $18,000,  approximately. 
138 


METHODS    OF    ADMINISTRATION.  139 

The  commission,  by  its  deputies,  has  investigated  all  suspicious 
cases.  It  has  held  many  meetings  with  employers  and  employees, 
instructing  them  in  the  law  and  how  to  carry  out  its  provisions.  It 
has  issued  many  bulletins,  explaining  the  law  and  the  methods  of  the 
commission,  fn  this  way  it  has  kept  both  the  workman  and  the 
employer  well  informed  and  at  the  same  time  interested  in  working 
out  the  compensation  problems. 

Our  law  is  elective,  but  for  the  month  of  December,  1913,  95.9  per 
cent  of  all  accidents  happening  in  the  industries  of  Wisconsin  were 
under  compensation. 

The  medical  claims  seldom  come  before  the  commission  for  con- 
sideration. The  employer  hires  the  physician,  and  the  payment  of 
the  physician  is  a  matter  of  contract.  Our  law  applies  to  the  State 
and  to  all  municipalities,  and  in  such  case's  we  have  frequently  been 
required  to  pass  upon  physicians'  bills.  We  have  had  little  trouble 
in  adjusting  these  matters  so  far. 

If  I  have  not  covered  this  matter  sufficiently  for  your  purpose,  I 
shall  be  glad  to  answer  any  further  questions. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

INDUSTRIAL  COMMISSION, 

C.  H.  CROWNHART,  Chairman. 


No.  4.  FORMS  USED  BY  STATE  BOARDS. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 
Form  No.  1. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 

NOTICE    TO    EMPLOYEES. 

As  required  by  chapter  751  of  the  Acts  of  1911,  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts, 
and  amendments  thereto,  entitled  "An  act  relative  to  payment  to  employees  for 
personal  injuries  received  in  the  course  of  their  employment,  and  to  the  prevention 
of  such  injuries." 

This  will  give  you  notice  that  I  (we)  have  provided  for  payment  to  our  injured 

employees  under  the  above  act  by  insuring  with  the 

Insurance  Co. 

(Insert  address  of  company  here.) 

Date 

(Name  of  employer.) 
Address 

(City  or  town.)  (Street  and  number.) 


Form  No.  2. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 

NOTICE    OF   CLAIM    OF   COMMON    LAW    RIGHTS. 

..191.. 

To 

(Name  of  employer.) 

This  is  to  notify  you  that  I  claim  my  right  of  action  at  common  law  to  recover 
damages  for  personal  injuries.  This  notice  is  given  to  you  under  the  acts  of  1911, 
chapter  751,  section  5,  Part  I,  and  amendments  thereto. 


(Signature  of  employee.) 
Address 

(City  or  town,  street  and  No.) 


Form  No.  3. 


WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 


NOTICE    OP   WAIVER    OF   RIGHTS    UNDER    COMMON    LAW    PREVIOUSLY   CLAIMED. 

..191. 


To employer. 

This  is  to  notify  you  that  I  waive  my  rights  under  the  common  law  previously 
claimed  by  former  notice,  and  now  claim  my  rights  under  the  workmen's  compensation 
act.  This  notice  is  given  to  you  under  the  Acts  of  1911,  chapter  751,  section  5,  Part  I, 
and  amendments  thereto. 


(Signature  of  employee.) 
Address 

(City  or  town,  street  and  No.) 


140 


FORMS   USED   BY    STATE   BOARDS.  141 

Form  No.  4. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 

Whenever  any  weekly  payment  has  been  continued  for  not  less  than  six  months,  the  liability  therefor 
may  in  unusual  cases  be  redeemed  by  the  payment  of  a  lump  sum  by  agreement  of  the  parties,  subject 
to  the  approval  ol  the  industrial  accident  board.  (Sec.  22,  Part  II,  ch.  751,  Acts  of  1911,  and  amendments 
thereto.) 

AGREEMENT   FOR   REDEEMING    LIABILITY   BY  PAYMENT   OF   LUMP   SUM. 

Received  of 

(Name  of  insurer.) 

the  lump  sum  of dollars 

and cents,    making  in  all,   with   weekly  payments  already 

received  by  me,  the  total  sum  of dollars 

and cents,  a  weekly  payment  having  been  continued  for  not 

less  than  six  months.  Said  payments  are  received  in  redemption  of  the  liability 
for  all  weekly  payments  now  or  in  the  future  due  me  under  the  Massachusetts 
workmen's  compensation  act,  for  all  injuries  received  by  me  on  or  about  the 
day  of ,  191..,  while  in  the  employ 

of ,  subject  to 

(Name  of  employer  and  address.) 

the  approval  of  the  industrial  accident  board. 
Witness  my  hand  this day  of ,  191. . 

Witness 

(Name.)  (Name  of  employee.) 

Address 

(City  or  town.)  '    (City  or  town.) 


(Street  and  number.)  (Street  and  number.) 

Form  No.  5. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD. 

Boston,  Mass. 

NOTICE  THAT  AN  EMPLOYER  HAS  CEASED  TO  BE  A  SUBSCRIBER. 

Section  21,  Part  IV,  chapter  751,  Acts  of  1911,  as  amended  by  section  16,  chapter 
571,  Acts  of  1912,  provides  that  when  an  employer  ceases  to  be  a  subscriber,  he  shall, 
on  or  before  the  day  on  which  his  policy  expires,  give  notice  thereof  in  writing  or 
print  to  all  persons  under  contract  of  hire  with  him,  and  he  shall  file  a  copy  of  said 
notice  with  the  Industrial  Accident  Board.  In  case  of  the  renewal  of  the  policy,  no 
notice  is  required.  Following  is  the  form: 

Notice. 

This  is  to  give  you  notice  that  I  (we)  have  ceased  to  be  a  subscriber  in  any  insur- 
ance company,  under  chapter  751,  Acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto,  and  that 

the  policy  formerly  held  by  me  expired 

or  is  to  expire 


(Name  of  employer.) 
Address  

(City  or  town,  street  and  No.) 


Form  No.  6. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD. 

Boston,  Mass. 

NOTICE   TO   INDUSTRIAL    ACCIDENT   BOARD   THAT  AN  INJURED   EMPLOYEE   HAS   REFUSED 
TO  SUBMIT  HIMSELF  TO  AN  EXAMINATION. 

You  are  hereby  notified  that 

(Name  of  employee.) 

" " "( Street"  and  No". ) " "  "  (City  "or  Town,  j 

who  was  injured  on  or  about while  in  the  employ  of 

(Date.) 
at 

(Name  of  employer.)  (Place.) 


142  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

has  refused  to  submit  himself  to  an  examination,  as.  required  under  the  provisions  of 
section  19,  Part  II,  chapter  751  of  the  acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto. 


(Name  of  insurance  association  or  company.) 

Per 

191 

(City.) 


Form  No.  7. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT. 

The  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts.     Industrial  Accident  Board.     Rooms  201-208 
Pemberton  Building,  12  Pemberton  Square,  Boston,  Mass. 

NOTICE  TO   EMPLOYEE  FROM  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD  RELATIVE  TO  HIS   REFUSAL 
TO  SUBMIT  HIMSELF  TO  AN  EXAMINATION. 

To 

"(Street  and  No.)                                                    (City  or  town.) 
The 

(Name  of  insurance  company.) 

has  notified  the  industrial  accident  board,  under  date  of 191 . , 

that  you  have  refused  to  submit  yourself  for  examination,  as  required  by  section  19, 
Part  II,  chapter  751,  Acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto.  Your  attention  is  called 
to  the  terms  of  the  act  which  provides: 

' '  After  an  employee  has  received  an  injury,  and  from  time  to  time  thereafter  *  *  * 
he  shall  *  *  *  submit  himself  to  an  examination  by  a  physician  or  surgeon 
*  *  *  furnished  and  paid  for  by  the  association  or  subscriber.  The  employee 
shall  have  the  right  to  have  a  physician  provided  and  paid  for  by  himself  present  at 
the  examination.  If  he  refuses  to  submit  himself  for  the  examination,  or  in  any  way 
obstructs  the  same,  his  right  to  compensation  shall  be  suspended,  and  his  compensa- 
tion during  the  period  of  suspension  may  be  forfeited." 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 
By  

Form  No.  8. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 

Every  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  under  this  act  is  subject  to  approval  by  the  industrial  acci- 
dent board,  and  a  memorandum  of  the  same  must  be  filed  with  the  board,  whether  said  agreement  is  written 
or  oral,  ana  whether  it  is  made  by  one  or  both  parties,  or  in  the  form  of  a  receipt.  Any  weekly  payment  or 
settlement  under  the  act,  whether  purporting  to  be  final  or  otherwise,  may  be  reviewed  by  the  board. 
(Sec.  20,  Part  II,  and  sees.  4  and  12,  Part  III,  ch.  751  of  the  acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto,  and  Rule 
No.  6  adopted  by  the  board.) 


,  employee. 
,  insurer. 


AGREEMENT  IN  REGARD  TO  COMPENSATION. 

We, ,  residing  at .... 

(Name  and  address  of  injured  employee.) 

city  or  town  of and  the 

(Name  and  address  of  insurance  association  or  company.) 
have  reached  an  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  for  the  injury  sustained  by 

said  employee  while  in  the  employ  of 

(Here  insert  name  and  address  of  employer. ) 

(Here  insert  tho  time,  including  hour  and  date  of  accident,  the  place  where  it  occurred,  the  nature  and 
cause  of  injury,  and  other  cause  or  ground  of  claim.) 

The  terms  of  the  agreement  follow: 

(Here  state  the  sum  per  week  agreed  upon  subject  to  the  terms  of  the  act.) 


(Witness.)  (Name  of  injured  employee.) 

(City  or  town,  street,  and  number.)  (Name  of  insurance  association  or  company.) 


FOBMS   USED  BY   STATE   BOARDS.  143 

Form  No.  9. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 

NOTE.— This  daim  is  to  be  filed  with  the  industrial  accident  board  and  may  be  sent  by  mail.  At  the 
time  of  filing,  a  copy  thereof  should  also  be  sent  by  the  employee  to  the  insurance  association  or  company. 
The  claim  should  be  made  within  six  months  after  the  occurrence  of  the  injury.  (Ch.  751,  Part  II,  sec.  15, 
and  sec.  23,  as  amended  by  acts  of  1912,  ch.  571,  sec.  5.) 

CLAIM   FOR  COMPENSATION   FOR   INJURY. 

This  is  to  notify  you 

(Name  of  association  or  company  with  which  employer  is  insured.) 

that  I  claim  compensation  from  you  under  the  workmen's  compensation  act,  chapter 
751,  acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto,  for  personal  injury  sustained  while  in  the 

employ  of 

,  of 

(Name  of  employer.)  (Street  and  number.) 

The  time  of  my  injury  was. . 

(City  or  town.) 

(Here  state  date  and  time  of  day  as  near  as  possible.) 
The  place  of  injury  was 

(State  name  or  description  of  building,  or  place,  where  injury  was  sustained.) 


The  cause  x  of  my  injury  was 

(Describe  cause  of  injury.) 


The  nature  of  my  injury  is  as  follows:  

(Describe  injury  with  such  exactness  as  possible.) 


(Signature  of  injured  employee.) 
(Street  and  number.) 
(City  or  town.)"" 


(Date  of  making  this  claim.) 

t  If  it  is  claimed  that  the  injury  was  caused  by  the  serious  and  willful  misconduct  of  the  employer,  or  of 
any  person  regularly  intrusted  with  or  exercising  the  powers  of  superintendence,  it  is  requested  that  it  be 
stated  in  this  claim  for  compensation,  setting  forth  in  the  alleged  cause,  in  general  terms,  in  what  the  serious 
and  willful  misconduct  of  the  employer  or  superintendent  consisted. 

Section  14  of  Part  III  of  this  act  provides  that  if  any  proceedings  are  brought,  prosecuted,  or  defended 
under  this  act  without  reasonable  ground,  the  whole  cost  of  the  proceeding  shall  be  assessed  upon  the  party 
wno  has  so  brought,  prosecuted,  or  defended  them. 


Form  No.  10. 


WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 


Under  sections  15, 16,  and  17,  Part  II,  chapter  751,  Acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto,  notice  of  the 
time,  place,  and  cause  of  the  injury  must  be  given  to  the  employer  or  the  association  or  the  liability  in- 
surance company,  as  soon  as  practicable  after  the  happening  thereof.  The  following  is  a  form  of  the  notice 
to  be  given  under  the  above  sections: 

NOTICE    OP  INJURY. 

This  is  to  notify  you 

(Name  of  employer  or  insurance  association  or  company.) 

that  on  the day  of ,  191     ,  at  about  . .  o'clock 

,1  received  personal  injury  while  in  your  employ  in  the  city  (town)  of 

(a.  m.  or  p.  m.) 

in  the 

(Name  or  description  of  building  or  place  of  employment.) 

and  that  the  accident  was  caused  to  me  by  reason  of 

(Describe  cause  of  injury.) 


(Name  of  employee.) 
(City  or  town.) 

Address 

(Street  and  number.) 


144  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Form  No.  11. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 
,  employee. 

,  insurer. 

REPORT    OF   COMMITTEE    ON    ARBITRATION. 

The  arbitration  committee  appointed  under  the  provisions  of  section  7,  Part  III, 
chapter  751,  Acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto,  having  investigated  the  claim 

of 

V 

being  case  No on  the  files  of  the  industrial  accident  board,  report 

as  follows: 

(Here  will  follow  report.) 


Form  No.  12. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 

APPLICATION   FOR   REVIEW    OP   CLAIM   BEFORE   FULL  BOARD. 

To  the  Industrial  Accident  Board,  Boston,  Mass. 

The  undersigned,  as  provided  in  Part  III,  sections  7  and  10,  chapter  751  of  the 
Acts  of  5911,  and  amendments  thereto,  makes  application  for  a  review  of  the  findings 

of  the  committee  on  arbitration  in  the  claim  of 

v , 

This  claim  for  a  review  is  based  on  the  following  grounds: 


,191--. 

Note. — "No  party  shall  as  a  matter  of  right  be  entitled  to  a  second  hearing  on  any 
matter  of  fact." 

Form  No.  13. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 

NOTICE    ASSESSING    COST    OF    PROCEEDINGS    BEFORE    ARBITRATION    COMMITTEE     UPON 
PARTY  PROSECUTING   OR   DEFENDING   SAME   WITHOUT   REASONABLE    GROUNDS. 

,  employee. 

,  insurer. 

To 

You  are  hereby  notified  that  the  proceedings  before  the 


(Industrial  accident  board,  or  arbitration  committee,  as  case  may  be.) 

on  the  above-entitled  claim,  have  been  determined  by  said  committee,  or  board, 

to  have  been   by  you  without  reasonable  grounds,  and 

(Prosecuted  or  defended.) 

that  the  costs,  amounting  to  $ ,  are  assessed  against  you. 

Respectfully, 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Or  ARBITRATION  COMMITTEE, 


By 


FORMS    USED    BY    STATE    BOARDS.  145 

Form  No.  14. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 

Every  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  is  subject  to  approval  by  the  industrial  accident  board, 
and  a  memorandum  of  the  same  must  be  filed  with  the  board  whether  said  agreement  is  written  or  oral 
and  whether  it  is  made  by  one  or  both  parties,  or  in  the  form  of  a  receipt.  Any  weekly  payment  or  settle 
ment  under  the  act,  whether  purporting  to  be  final  or  otherwise,  may  be  reviewed  by  th'e  board.  (Sec- 
20,  Part  II,  and  sees.  4  and  12,  Part  III,  ch.  751  of  the  Acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto,  and  rule 
adopted  by  the  board.) 

RECEIPT   ON  ACCOUNT   OF  COMPENSATION. 

Received  of 

(Name  of  insurer.) 

the  sum  of dollars, 

and cents,  being  the  proportion  of  my  weekly  wages  for  the  period 

from  the day  of ,  191..,  to  the 

day  of  ,  191 . .,  under  the  Massachusetts  workmen's  compensation 

act,  subject  to  review  by  the  industrial  accident  board. 


(Employee.) 
(Street  and"  No.) 
(City  or  town.) 


Form  No.  15. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 

Every  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  under  this  act  is  subject  to  approval  by  the  industrial  accl- 
dent  board,  and  a  memorandum  of  the  same  must  be  filed  with  the  board,  whether  said  agreement  is 
written  or  oral,  and  whether  it  is  made  by  one  or  both  parties,  or  in  the  form  of  a  receipt.  Any  weekly 
payment  or  settlement  under  the  act,  whether  purporting  to  be  final  or  otherwise,  may  be  reviewed  by 
the  board.  (Sec.  20,  Part  II,  and  sees.  4  and  12,  Part  III,  ch.  751  of  the  Acts  of  1911,  and  amendment's 
thereto,  and  Rule  No.  6  adopted  by  the  board.) 

SETTLEMENT    RECEIPT. 

Received  of 

(Name  of  insurer.) 

the  sum  of ' dollars 

and cents,  making  in  all,  with  weekly  payments  already  received 

by  me,  the  total  sum  of dollars 

and cents,  in  settlement  of  compensation  under  the  Massachusetts 

workmen's  compensation  act,  for  all  injuries  received  by  me  on  or  about  the 

day  of ,  191 ..,  while  in  the  employ  of 

(Name  of  employer,  city  or  town,  street  and  number.) 
subject  to  approval  and  review  by  the  industrial  accident  board. 

Witness  my  hand  this day  of ,  191. .. 

Witness 

(Name.)  (Name  of  employee.) 

Address 

(Street  and  number.)  (Street  and  number.) 


(City  or  town.)  (City  or  town.) 

Form  No.  16. 

WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  ACT,  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 

Boston,  Mass. 

,  employee. 

,  insurer. 

NOTICE    OF   FAILURE    OF   PARTIES   TO    REACH   AN   AGREEMENT. 

To  the  Industrial  Accident  Board,  Boston,  Mass. 

I ,  respectfully  notify 

(Name  of  party  giving  notice.) 

you  in  accordance  with  section  5,  Part  III,  of  said  act,  that  the  above-named  parties 
have  failed  to  reach  an  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation,  and  request  a  com- 
mittee of  arbitration. 


30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2 10 


(Name  of  party  giving  notice.) 
(Address,  street  and  number,  city  or  town.) 
(Date  of  notice.) 


146  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

MICHIGAN. 

EMPLOYER'S  WRITTEN  ACCEPTANCE. 
[Act  No.  10  of  Public  Acts,  extra  session,  1912.] 

Industrial  Accident  Board,  Lansing,  Mich.: 

Take  notice  that  the  undersigned  employer  of  labor  in  Michigan  accepts  the  pro- 
visions of  act  No.  10  of  Public  Acts,  extra  session,  1912. 
Number  of  employees 

Location  of  place  of  employment 

(If  more  than  one  plant,  place  of  business,  or  work  place,  state  each  fully.) 

Nature  of  employment 

(If  more  than  one  kind,  state  each  fully,  with  location.) 


Method  of  providing  for  compensation  adopted  by  the  undersigned 

(State  whether  mutual 

insurance  [give  name],  insurance  company  [give  name],  State  insurance  commissioner,  or  carry  own  risk.) 
Dated  at ,  this day  of ,  19 ... 


By 


(P.  O.  address.) 


NOTE. — If  employer  wishes  to  accept  the  provisions  of  the  above  law,  this  notice  must  be  signed  by  the 
employer  and  filed  with  the  industrial  accident  board.  When  so  filed,  it  becomes  immediately  binding 
on  the  employer.  If  employer  is  a  corporation,  the  notice  should  have  the  corporate  name  and  seal  affixed 
and  be  signed  by  an  officer  having  authority  to  do  so. 


CERTIFICATE. 

To  Industrial  Accident  Board,  Lansing,  Mich.: 

GENTLEMEN:  This  certifies  that 

(Name  of  firm.) 
of is  insured  by 

(Address.) 
of , 

covering  the  obligations  imposed  upon  said  insured  by  act  No.  10  of  Public  Acts  of 
1912,  extra  session,  commonly  known  as  the  workmen's  compensation  law;  that 
said  insurance  is  written  upon  and  in  accordance  with  our  policy  form  No.  or  letter 

,  being  the  same  in  every  respect  as  the  policy  contract  form  filed  by  the 

undersigned  company  with  the  industrial  accident  board  (on  and  in  accordance  "with 

our  blank  form  of  policy  No.  or  letter and  our  indorsement  written  upon 

and  in  accordance  with  our  blank  indorsement  form  No filed  by  the  under- 
signed company  with  your  board).1  All  changes  that  may  hereafter  be  made  by  the 
company  in  such  contract  of  insurance  will  be  immediately  reported  to  your  board. 

The  location  2  and  character  of  the  business  operations  covered  by  said  insurance 
are  as  follows: 

This  certificate  is  furnished  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  industrial 
accident  board. 

Dated  at Michigan,  this dav  of  . . 

191.. 


(Name  of  company.) 

By 

(Name  and  title  of  person  executing  certificate.) 

1  If  the  policy  form  covers  without  an  attached  rider,  erase  matter  in  parentheses  above;  but  if  the  rider 
and  policy  are' both  used  let  matter  in  parentheses  stand  and  erase  corresponding  matter,  so  as  to  express 
the  fact. 

2  If  more  than  one  location,  so  state;  and  if  business  is  of  more  than  one  character,  state  facts  with  sub- 
stantial accuracy. 


FORMS    USED   BY    STATE    BOARDS.  147 


Date  received File  No.  of  accident 

(Do  not  fill  in.)  (Do  not  fill  in.) 

Michigan  Industrial  Accident  Board. 

FIRST  REPORT  OF  ACCIDENT. 


1.  Name  of  employer 

2.  Address  of  employer 

3.  Nature  of  business 

4.  Name  of  person  injured 

5.  Address  of  injured 

6.  Occupation  of  injured 7.  Nationality. 

8.  Sex 9.  Age 10.  Date  of  accident. 

11.  State  amount  of  weekly  wage  * 

12.  Did  injured  person  elect  not  to  come  under  law? 

13.  Place  of  accident,  in  detail 

14.  Cause  and  manner  of  accident 


15.  Nature  and  extent  of  injury 

16.  Did  you  supply  medical  attention? 

]  7.  Name  and  address  of  physician r 

18.  Was  injured  taken  home  or  to  hospital? '. 

(if  hospital,  give  name  and  location.) 

19.  Signature  of  person  making  out  report 

20.  Position 21.  Date  of  report 

*  If  piecework,  give  average  earnings;  if  hourly  rate  is  given,  state  number  of  hours  per  day. 

INSTRUCTIONS. 

The  report  called  for  in  this  blank  is  required  to  be  made  only  in  cases  involving  the  loss  of  a  member, 
or  death,  or  disability  continuing  for  more  than  14  days. 

The  time  for  making  this  report  in  cases  where  the  accident  involves  the  loss  of  a  member,  or  death,  is 
within  10  days  after  the  accident.  Where  the  accident  results  in  disability  only,  this  report  is  to  be  made 
on  the  fifteenth  day  after  the  accident. 

In  case  the  accident  causes  the  loss  of  a  member,  state  exactly  what,  and  the  precise  point  of  amputation: 
For  example,  the  index  finger  of  the  right  hand  at  the  second  joint,  or  the  left  arm  at  the  elbow;  the  right 
eye,  etc. 

Answer  the  questions  on  this  blank  fully.    Incomplete  or  indefinite  reports  will  be  returned  for  correction. 


Date  received File  No.  of  accident 

(Do  not  fill  in.)  (Do  not  fill  in.) 

Michigan  Industrial  Accident  Board. 

SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT  OF  ACCIDENT. 

1.  Name  of  employer 

2.  Address  of  employer 

3.  Name  of  injured  person 

4.  State  whether  injury  resulted  in  death,  or  in  temporary,  partial,  or  total  disa- 

bility  

5.  If  at  hospital,  give  name  and  location 

6.  If  not  yet  resumed  work,  state  probable  period  of  further  disability 

7.  Did  you  furnish  all  medical  aid  required  during  first  three  weeks? 

8.  Amount  of  compensation  paid  to  date 9.  No.  of  weeks 

10.  Has  injured  employee  returned  to  work? . 

11.  If  so,  give  date 12.  Date  of  accident 

13.  If  injury  resulted  in  death,  give  names,  ages,  relationship,  and  address  of  all 

dependents: 

Name.  Age.          Relationship.  Address. 


14 .  Signature  of  person  making  report 

15.  Position Date  of  report. 

The  report  called  for  in  this  blank  is  required  to  be  made  one  month  after  first  report  is  sent  in.    Use  this 
form  for  final  report  if  death  results  during  interim. 


INSTRUCTIONS. 


In  case  the  accident  causes  the  loss  of  a  member,  state  exactly  what,  and  the  precise  point  of  amputation: 
For  example,  the  index  finger  of  the  right  hand  at  the  second  joint,  or  the  left  arm  at  the  elbow;  the  right 

Answer  th  e  questions  on  this  blank  fully.    Incomplete  or  indefinite  reports  will  be  returned  for  correction. 


148  WORKMEN  's    COMPENSATION. 

NOTICE   TO    EMPLOYER   OF   CLAIM   FOR   INJURY. 

[Under  act  No.  10  of  Public  Acts,  extra  session,  1912.    Employers'  liability  end  workmen's  compensation 

law.] 

To 

(Write  name  of  employer  plainly  on  above  line.) 


(Write  address  of  employer  plainly  on  above  line.) 

You  will  take  notice  that  according  to  the  provisions  of  act  No.  10  of  Public  Acts, 

extra  session,  1912 hereby  makes  claim  for  compensation 

for  injury  received  by while  in  your  employ. 

Name  of  employee 

Post-office  address  : 

The  accident  occurred  the day  of ,  191 . . ,  at 

,  Michigan. 

The  nature  of  the  injury  is  as  follows: 


Signature 

Address 

Dated  at ,  this day  of ,191... 

NOTE.— This  notice  should  be  filled  out  by  injured  employee  or  some  one  in  his  behalf.  In  case  of  death 
of  employee  notice  is  to  be  filled  out  by  dependent.  Notice  should  be  served  within  30  days  of  accident  on 
employer  by  delivering  a  copy  of  the  above  notice  to  employer  personally  or  by  registered  mail. 

Fill  out  in  duplicate,  hand  or  mail  one  copy  to  employer,  mail  the  other  copy  to  the  industrial  accident 
board,  Lansing,  Mich. 


AGREEMENT   IN    REGARD   TO    COMPENSATION.* 

We, 

(Name  of  injured  employee.) 

residing  at  city  or  town  at 

and , 

(Name  of  employer,  insurance  company,  or  commissioner  of  insurance.) 

have  reached  an  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  for  the  injury  sustained  by  said 

employee  while  in  the  employ  of 

(Name  and  address  of  employer.) 

The  time,  including  hour  and  date  of  accident,  the  place  where  it  occurred,  the 
nature  and  cause  of  injury,  and  other  cause  or  ground  of  claim  are  as  follows: 

The  terms  of  the  agreement  follow : 

(Here  state  the  sum  per  week  agreed  upon,  subject  to  the  terms  of  the  act;  also  wages  earned  by  injured 
at  time  of  accident.) 

Witness: 


(Name  of  injured  employee.) 

(Name  of  employer,  insurance  company, 
or  insurance  commissioner.) 

By 

Dated  at ,  this day  of ,19 

*NOTE.— If  the  employer,  or  the  insurance  company  carrying  such  risk,  or  commissioner  of  insurance,  as 
the  case  may  be,  and  the  injured  employee  reach  an  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  under  this  act, 
a  memorandum  of  such  agreement  shallbe  filed  with  the  industrial  accident  board,  and  if  approved  by  it 
shall  be  deemed  final  and  binding  upon  the  parties  thereto.  Such  agreement  shall  be  approved  by  said 
board  only  when  the  terms  conform  to  the  provisions  of  this  act.  (Section  5,  Part  III.) 


FORMS    USED   BY    STATE    BOARDS.  149 


Date  received File  No.  of  accident 

(Do  not  fill  in.)  (Do  not  fill  in.) 

Michigan  Industrial  Accident  Board. 

FINAL   REPORT    OF   ACCIDENT. 

1.  Name  of  employer 

2.  Address 

3.  Name  of  person  injured 

4.  Occupation 

5.  Wages 

6.  Total  amount  of  compensation  paid 

7.  Number  of  weeks 

8.  Total  medical  and  hospital  cost 

(Exclusive  of  services  of  company  surgeon.) 

9.  Date  payment  completed 

10.  Date  of  accident 

11.  Date  of  return  to  work 

12.  Signature  of  person  making  report t 

13.  Position 

14.  Date  of  report 


STIPULATION    AND    WAIVER    OF   ARBITRATION. 


Applicant, 

V. 


Respondent  (s). 

The  facts  in  this  case  being  undisputed  and  the  only  matter  in  difference  between 
the  parties  hereto  being  the  construction  and  application  to  said  facts  of  the  work- 
men's compensation  law,  being  act  No.  10,  Public  Acts  1912,  extra  session,  and  the 
parties  hereto  desiring  to  obtain  a  decision  of  said  matter  by  the  full  board  without 
resorting  to  arbitration,  do  hereby  stipulate  and  agree  as  follows: 

1.  That  the  accident  to  the  employee,  upon  which  the  claim  for  compensation  in 

this  cause  is  based,  occurred  on  the day  of 19.  .in  the  town  of 

county  of. State  of  Michigan, 

and  that  the  same  arose  out  of  and  in  the  course  of  his  employment.     That  the  char- 
acter and  nature  of  the  injury  and  the  result  thereof  is  as  follows: 

(State  in  detail  the  nature  of  the  injury,  disability,  or  death  resulting,  etc.) 

2.  That  the  facts  relating  to  the  wages  of 

said  employee  are  as  follows:  


If  average  weekly  wage  is  undisputed,  so  state;  if  disputed,  state  all  material  facts 
relating  to  same 

3.  The  other  material  facts  in  said  cause  not  included  in  paragraphs  1  and  2  are  as 
follows: 

4.  That  the  arbitration  of  the  matters  in  difference  between  the  parties  hereto, 
provided  for  in  said  workmen's  compensation  law,  be  and  the  same  is  hereby  waived, 
and  the  decision  of  said  matters  is  hereby  submitted  to  the  industrial  accident  board, 
sitting  as  a  full  board,  the  same  as  if  this  cause  had  proceeded  to  arbitration  under 
said,  aw,  and  the  decision  on  arbitration  therein  had  been  appealed  from  and  said 
cause  thereby  brought  before  the  full  board  on  appeal  from  such  decision.     It  is 
further  stipulated  and  agreed  that  the  decision  of  said  board  in  this  cause  pursuant 
to  this  stipulation,  and  based  upon  the  facts  set  forth  herein  shall  be  valid  and  binding, 
and  shall  have  the  same  validity,  force,  and  effect  as  if  said  cause  had  proceeded  to 
arbitration  in  due  course,  and  was  brought  before  the  full  board  on  appeal  duly  taken 
from  the  decisiofc  of  an  arbitration  committee  therein. 


150  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

In  witness  whereof  the  parties  hereto  have  signed  this  stipulation  at 

in  the  county  of State  of  Michigan, 

this.. ..day  of ,191... 


(Applicant.) 
(Respondents.) 


Signed  in  presence  of — 
(Acknowledgment  follows.) 


LETTER  FORM   IN    RE    ARBITRATION. 

I  herewith  inclose  you  copy  of  the  application  for  adjustment  of  claim  and  notice 
of  arbitration  of  the  same;  also  a  blank  form  on  which  you  are  to  designate  your  mem- 
ber of  the  arbitration  committee  which  is  to  hear  and  decide  the  matter.  Please 
select  one  man  as  your  member  of  the  committee  of  arbitration,  write  his  name  in  the 
blank  at  the  place  indicated,  date  and  sign  the  same  and  return  to  the  industrial 
accident  board  in  the  inclosed  stamped  envelope. 

You  are  required  under  the  law  to  make  selection  of  your  member  of  the  committee 
of  arbitration  and  to  notify  the  board  of  your  selection  in  the  manner  set  forth  in  said 
form  within  seven  days.  In  case  of  your  failure  so  to  do  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the 
industrial  accident  board  to  make  the  selection  of  such  member.  It  will  be  necessary 
for  both  parties  to  be  present  at  the  time  and  place  fixed  for  this  arbitration,  and  that 
they  be  prepared  to  proceed  with  the  matter. 
Very  truly,  yours, 


Secretary. 


To 

The  industrial  accident  board  has  received  notice  of  your  appointment  by 


as  a  member  of  the  arbitration  committee  in  the  matter  of , 

applicant,  v ,  respondent,  such  arbitration  to  be  held 

at ,  in  the  town  of , 

county  of  ,  State  of  Michigan,  on  the  day  of 

t  19 ,  commencing  at   o'clock  in  the   noon.     You  are 

requested  to  be  on  hand  promptly  at  the  time  and  place  set  for  this  arbitration,  so 
that  the  matter  may  be  heard  and  disposed  of  without  unnecessary  delay. 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 
By , 

Secretary. 
Dated  this day  of ,19 


.APPLICATION    FOR   REVIEW    OF   CLAIM    BEFORE    FULL    BOARD. 

To  the  Industrial  Accident  Board,  Lansing,  Mich. 

GENTLEMEN:  The  undersigned,  as  provided  in  part  3,  section  8,  of  act  No.  10, 
Public  Acts  1912,  makes  application  for  a  review  of  the  findings  of  the  committee  on 

arbitration  in  the  claim  of 

v : 

This  claim  for  review  is  based  on  the  following  grounds : 


Dated  at this day  of ,  1 J 

SEC  11  Part  3  If  a  claim  for  review  is  filed,  as  provided  in  part  3,  section  8,  the  industrial  ac  cident  board 
shall  promptly  review  the  decision  of  the  committee  of  arbitration  and  such  records  as  may  have  been 
kept  of  its  hearings,  and  shall  also,  if  desired,  hear  the  parties,  together  with  such  additional  evidence  as 
they  may  wish  to  submit,  and  file  its  decision  therein  with  the  records  of  such  proceedings.  Such  review 
and  hearing  may  be  held  in  its  office  at  Lansing  or  elsewhere,  as  the  board  shall  deem  advisable. 

SEC.  12.  The  findings  of  fact  made  by  said  industrial  accident  board  acting  within  its  powers  shall,  in 
the  absence  of  fraud,  oe  conclusive,  but  the  supreme  court  shall  have  power  to  review  questions  of  law 
involved  in  any  final  decision  or  determination  of  said  industrial  accident  board:  Provided,  That  applica- 
tion is  made  by  the  aggrieved  party  within  30  days  after  such  determination  by  certiorari,  mandamus,  or 
by  any  other  method  permissible  under  the  rules  and  practice  of  said  court  or  the  laV  of  this  State,  and  to 
make  such  further  orders  in  respect  thereto  as  justice  may  require. 


FORMS    USED    BY    STATE    BOARDS.  151 

Forms  illustrative  of  methods  pursued  by  State  boards  without  -waiting  for 
injured  employee  to  institute  proceedings  to  recover  compensation. 

CALIFORNIA. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  industrial  accident  board  is  informed  that  an  accident  happened 

to  ' at  on  or  about 

,  in  the  course  of  his  employment  by  you. 

If  the  employee  was  disabled  for  less  than  one  week,  it  is  necessary  to  notify  this 
board  at  once. 

If  the  disablement  lasted  for  one  week  or  more,  it  is  necessary  to  make  formal  report 
on  the  inclosed  blanks. 

A  copy  of  the  law  relating  to  this  matter  is  inclosed. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD. 


Statistician. 
Inclosures. 


DEAR  SIR:  We  understand  that  you  were  injured  in  an  accident  on  or  about. 


This  board  is  required  by  law  to  get  records  of  all  industrial  accidents.     We  desire 
to  have  you  answer  the  following  questions: 

I.  What  is  the  name  and  address  of  the  person  or  firm  for  whom  you  were  working 
at  the  time  you  were  hurt? 

II.  Were  you  laid  up  for  one  week  or  longer? 
Very  truly,  yours, 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 


Statistician. 

DEAR  SIR:  We  wrote  you  on in  reference  to  an  accident  to 

who  was  injured and  inclosed 

blanks  to  be  filled  in  and  returned  to  this  office,  informing  you  at  the  same  time  that 
all  accidents  which  cause  disability  of  more  than  seven  days  must  be  reported  to  this 
board. 

To  date  we  have  received  no  report.  It  is  necessary  that  you  give  this  matter  your 
prompt  attention,  inasmuch  as  failure  to  report  to  this  board  constitutes  a  misde- 
meanor. 

Very  truly,  yours, 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 


Statistician. 

DEAR  SIR:  It  is  again  necessary  for  us  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  you 
have  not  yet  reported  the  accident  to who  was  in- 
jured   ,  nor  have  you  notified  us  that  this  accident  caused  a  disa- 
bility of  less  than  seven  days. 

We  wrote  you  on and  again  on ,  urging 

upon  you  the  necessity  of  reporting  to  this  board.     Failure  to  report  as  requested  con- 
stitutes a  misdemeanor.     Blanks  were  inclosed  with  our  first  fetter. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD, 


Statistician. 

DEAR  SIR:  Supplemental  or  final  report  is  due  this  office  in  the  case  of 

,  injured  on  The  legal  limit  (60  days) 

for  the  filing  of  such  report  has  expired. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  BOARD. 


4A.  FORMS— RECEIPTS  FOR  COMPENSATION  PAYMENTS. 

Illustrative  of  methods  pursued  by  State  boards  in  the  filing  of  receipts 
showing  that  amount  of  compensation  has  actually  been  paid. 

MICHIGAN. 

SETTLEMENT    RECEIPT. 


Received  of 

(Name  of  employer,  insurance  company,  or  commissioner  of  insurance.) 


the   sum   of dollars 

and cents,  making  in  all,  with  weekly  payments 

already  received  by  me,  the  total  sum  of dollars 

and cents,  in  settlement 

of  compensation  under  the  Michigan  workmen's  compensation  law,  for  all  injuries 

received  by  me  on  or  about  the day  of ,  191 . . . , 

while  in  the  employ  of 

(Name  of  employer,  city  or  town,  street  and  number.) 

subject  to  review  and  approval  by  the  industrial  accident  board. 

Witness  my  hand  this day  of ,   191 . . . 

Witness. 

(Name  of  employee.) 

Address 


(Street  and  number.) 

(City  or  town.) 

If  the  emj 
may  be, 

deemed  final  and  binding  upon  the  parties  thereto.    Such  agreement  shall  be  approved  by  said  board  only 
when  the  terms  conform  to  the  provisions  of  this  act.— (Sec.  5,  Part  III.) 


Form  No.  11—7-13-50,000. 

RECEIPT   ON    ACCOUNT    OP   COMPENSATION. 

Received  of the  sum   of 

(Name  of  employer,  insurance  company,  or  commissioner  of  insurance.) 

dollars  and cents 

being  the  proportion  of  my  weekly  wages  from  the day  of 191. . . , 

to  the day  of 191 ,  under  the  Michigan  workmen's 

compensation  law,  subject  to  review  by  the  industrial  accident  board,  said  accident 
152 


RECEIPTS    FOR   PAYMENTS.  153 

occurring  on  the day  of ,  191 . . ,  while  in  the  em- 
ploy of 

$...        

(Name  of  employee.) 


(Street  and  number.) 

Date 

(City  or  town.) 

If  the  em 


may 

randum  of  such 


deemed  final  and  binding  upon  the  parties  thereto.    Such  agreement  shall  be  ap'proved  by  said  bo'ard  only 
when  the  terms  conform  to  the  provisions  of  this  act.— (Sec.  5,  Part  III.) 


MASSACHUSETTS. 

Form  No.  15. 

Every  agreement  in  regard  to  compensation  under  this  act  is  subject  to  approval  by  the  industrial  accident 
board  and  a  memorandum  of  the  same  must  be  filed  with  the  board,  whether  said  agreement  is  written  or 
oral,  and  whether  it  is  made  by  one  or  both  parties,  or  in  the  form  of  a  receipt.  Any  weekly  payment  or 
settlement  under  the  act,  whether  purporting  to  be  final  or  otherwise,  may  be  reviewed  by  the  board. 
Section  20,  Part  II,  and  sections  4  and  12,  Part  III,  chapter  751  of  the  acts  of  1911,  and  amendments  thereto, 
and  rule  No.  6  adopted  by  the  board. 

SETTLEMENT    RECEIPT. 


Received  of -  -  the  sum  of 

(Name  of  insurer.) 

dollars  and cents,  making  in  all,  with  weekly 

payments  already  received  by  me,  the  total  sum  of 

dollars  and cents,  in  settlement  of  compensation  under  the  Massachusetts 

workmen's  compensation  act,  for  all  injuries  received  by  me  on  or  about  the 

day  of 191. . ,  while  in  the  employ  of 

(Name  of  employer,  city  or  town,  street  and  number.) 

subject  to  approval  and  review  by  the  industrial 

accident  board. 
Witness  my  hand  this day  of 191. .. 


Witness 

(Name.)  (Name  of  employee.) 


(Street  and  number  (Street  and  number.) 

(City"  or"  town. "  "  (City  "or  town.) 


No.  5.  MEDICAL  AND   SURGICAL  AID. 

RECOMMENDATIONS     MADE     BY     MASSACHUSETTS     MEDICAL     ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE. 

First.  That  a  permanent  advisory  medical  committee  is  necessary. 

Second.  That  we  consider  it  inexpedient  to  have  a  medical  man  as 
a  member  of  the  industrial  accident  board. 

Third.  That  the  industrial  accident  board  should  have  a  consulting 
surgeon  upon  whom  should  fall  the  duty  of  detail  work  in  preparation 
of  matters  to  be  laid  before  the  advisory  committee.  Matters  in  dis- 
pute regarding  services  and  fees  of  physicians  should  be  referred  to 
this  committee  for  recommendation. 

Fourth.  That  insurance  companies  be  requested  to  provide  suitable 
blanks  for  notifications  as  well  as  specifications  of  services  rendered 
by  physicians. 

Fifth.  That  industrial  insurance  companies  be  encouraged  to  allow 
all  reputable  physicians  to  render  services  in  industrial  accidents,  pro- 
vided they  are  willing  to  render  such  services  upon  reasonable  basis. 

Sixth.  That  the  accident  board  should  make  arrangements  with 
which  the  insurance  companies  should  cooperate,  that  any  physician 
whose  bill  is  in  dispute  may  appear  before  a  representative  of  the 
accident  board  within  a  reasonable  distance  of  his  home. 

Seventh.  That  the  accident  board  shall  provide  for  medical  referees 
by  districts. 

*  Eighth .  That  fees  paid  by  the  companies  should  not  be  less  than  the 
average  minimum  fee  in  the  locality  in  which  the  service  is  rendered. 

Ninth.  That  charges  up  to  $50  for  major  operations  are  not 
excessive. 

Tenth.  That  physicians  appearing  at  hearings  before  the  board  shall 
receive  the  compensation  as  provided  for  under  section  8,  part  3,  of 
the  act. 

Eleventh.  That  services  rendered  by  lodge  physicians  be  paid  for, 
provided  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  rules  of  the  order. 

Twelfth.  That  specialists,  established  and  recognized  by  the  pro- 
fession as  such,  may  receive  special  rates  for  their  work,  provided  the 
case  requires  special  skill. 

Thirteenth.  That  the  ruling  previously  made  by  the  accident  board, 
that "  fees  should  not  be  charged  an  injured  party  whose  employer  was 
insured  larger  than  the  injured  party  would  be  charged  were  he  not 
insured,"  should  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  in  a  given  accident  the 
fee  paid  by  the  insurance  companies  for  services  should  not  be  less  than 
the  average  minimum  fee  for  similar  services  in  the  locality  in  which 
said  services  are  rendered. 
154 


MEDICAL  AND  SURGICAL  AID.  155 

Report  to  Massachusetts  Industrial  Accident  Board  of  24  insurance  companies  doing  busi- 
ness under  the  workmen's  compensation  act  in  Massachusetts  for  the  year  ending  June 
SO,  1913. 

1.  Number  of  employees  receiving  medical  services  only 26,  609 

2.  Number  of  employees  receiving  compensation  only  l 3,  820 

3.  Number  of  employees  receiving  both  medical  services  and  compen- 

sation x. 10,  827 

4.  Xumber  of  cases  reported  requiring  neither  payment  of  compensation 

nor  medical  expense 32, 109 

5.  Number  of  fatal  injury  cases  reported  in  which  dependents  totally 

dependent  for  support  upon  the  employee  were  left  under  section 

6,  part  2,  of  the  act 203 

6.  Number  of  fatal  injury  cases  in  which  dependents  partially  depend- 

ent were  left 31 

7.  Number  of  fatal  injury  cases  in  which  no  dependents  were  left 43 


8.  Total  compensation  paid  all  injured  employees  and  dependents  of 

all  fatally  injured  employees $490,  816.  80 

9.  Payments  covering  medical  and  hospital  services  and  medicines, 

under  section  5,  part  2,  of  the  act 297, 131.  87 

10.  Estimated  liability  on  account  of  compensation  due  injured  em- 

ployees and  their  dependents,  covering  the  amount  of  deferred 
payments  for  losses  incurred  and  the  estimated  cost  of  undeter- 
mined losses  l 725,  267.  41 

11.  Estimated  liability  on  account  of  medical  services  rendered,  but  not 

yet  paid  ' .-----: 97> 158-  84 

12.  Compensation  paid  in  fatal  injury  cases  in  which  dependents  totally 

dependent  survived 33, 174.  02 

13.  Estimated  liability  on  account  of  deferred  payments  under  item  12  2. .     313,  786.  33 

14.  Compensation  paid  in  fatal  injury  cases  in  which  dependents  partially 

dependent  survived 3,  401.  47 

15.  Estimated  liability  on  account  of  deferred  payments  under  item  14  2. .       26,  757. 15 

16.  Payments  covering  fatal  injury  cases  where  no  dependents  survived, 

under  section  8,  part  2,  of  the  act 4, 142.  01 

17.  Estimated  liability  on  account  of  deferred  payments  under  section  8, 

part  2  of  the  act  2 3,  235.  00 

MEDICAL    AND    SURGICAL    FEE    SCHEDULES    ADOPTED    BY    TWO    INSUR- 
ANCE   COMPANIES. 

SURGICAL   FEE    SCHEDULE. 

In  presenting  the  following  fee  table  the  company  recognizes  the  difficulty  of 
making  any  fee  table  that  will  fit  all  cases,  but  intends  to  interpret  the  following 
with  all  reasonableness. 

It  is  understood  that  the  usual  first-aid  charge  for  minor  injuries,  where  the  injured 
party  comes  to  the  surgeon's  office,  will  be  either  one  or  two  dollars,  according  to  the 
severity  of  the  injury.  If  the  surgeon  has  to  leave  his  office  and  go  to  the  injured 
person,  an  additional  charge  may  be  made  in  accordance  with  the  distance,  etc. 

These  fees  have  been  established  with  the  understanding  that  they  include  in  all 
cases  the  necessary  appliances,  dressings,  anesthetics,  etc.,  for  the  proper  treatment 
of  each  case,  and  that  they  will  be  supplied  by  the  attending  physician.  It  is  also 
imderstood  that  the  strictest  aseptic  precautions  will  be  observed  in  accordance 
with  approved  methods  of  surgery. 

i  Information  not  yet  received  from  two  companies.    Amount  estimated. 
» Information  not  yet  received  from  one  company.    Amount  estimated. 


156 


WORKMEN  S    COMPENSATION. 


Fee  table. 

First  aid  not 
to  exceed — 

1.  Bruises,  sprains,  abrasions;  incised,  punctured,  or  lacerated  wounds  that  do 

not  need  suturing §1-2 

2.  More  extensive  lacerations  or  incised  wounds  and  scalp  wounds 2 

3.  Slight  infections,  burns  and  scalds 2 

4.  Any  injury  to  a  distal  phalanx  of  the  hand  or  foot 2 

5.  Compound  fractures  of  the  proximal  phalanges  of  the  fingers  or  toes 5 

6.  Compound  fractures  of  the  bones  of  the  hand  or  foot  (not  fingers  or  toes) 5 

7.  Reduction  of  simple  fractures  or  dislocations  of  ribs  or  of  the  small  joints  or 

bones  of  the  fingers  or  toes 3 

8.  Foreign  bodies  in  conjunctival  sac  or  cornea 2 

9.  Reduction  of  simple  fractures  or  dislocations  of  the  wrist  or  ankle,  including 

forearm  and  leg 15 

10.  Reductions  of  simple  fractures  or  dislocations  of  other  major  joints  and  bones.  20 

11.  Compound  fractures  or  dislocations  of  the  wrist  or  ankles  or  major  joints  and 

bones,  where  first  aid  includes  operative  reduction 25 

12.  Amputation  of  finger  or  toe 5 

13.  Amputation  of  hand  or  foot 20 

14.  Amputation  of  leg,  thigh,  forearm,  or  arm 25 

15.  Amputation  of  thigh  at  hip  joint 75 

16.  Amputation  at  shoulder  joint 50 

17.  Compound  fracture  of  skull  that  necessitates  operative  opening  of  the  cranial 

cavity 75 

18.  Anesthesia 2-5 

19.  Assistance  at  operations,  from  $2  to  20  per  cent  of  the  principal  fee. 

20.  X-ray  pictures  (to  be  taken  only  upon  orders  from  the  company),  $2.50  each 

for  first  two  plates;  $2  each  for  subsequent  plates. 

It  is  the  experience  of  the  company  that  in  the  subsequent  care  of  these  cases  most 
of  them  need  about  an  average  of  three  dressings  a  week,  at  an  average  charge  of  $1 

each,  where  the  patient  goes  to  the  doctor's  office,  and  at  an  average  charge  of  $ 

each  where  it  is  necessary  for  the  doctor  to  go  to  the  patient's  house,  until  such  time 
as  the  patient  may  safely  be  trusted  to  dress  the  wound  himself.  When  this  time 
comes  it  is  expected  that  the  surgeon  will  act  honorably  toward  this  company  and 
not  continue  to  make  dressings  after  they  cease  to  be  necessary. 

Accordingly,  it  is  understood  that  charges  for  subsequent  treatment  will  in  most 
cases  be  limited  to  charges  for  three  visits  per  week,  at  the  following  rates:  Office 
calls,  $1;  house  or  hospital  visits,  $ . 

Where  the  policy  of  the  insured  covers  first  aid  only,  or  aid  for  a  limited  term  only, 
no  charge  will  be  made  to  this  company  beyond  the  charge  for  such  first  aid  or  limited 
term.  Compensation  for  further  dressings  must  be  privately  arranged  for. 

The  above  schedule  of  fees  is  approved  and  will  be  accepted  by  me  as  a  guide 
for  charges  where  I  am  called  upon  to  render  surgical  aid  to  injured  persons,  for  which 
the  insurance  company,  accident  and  liability  department,  may  undertake  to  pay. 

(Signed.) ,  M.  D. 


Medical  fee  schedule. 


First  aid. 

Subse- 
quent aid. 

Ordinary  day  visit  not  necessitating  antiseptic  dressing 

$1.50 

Visit  necessitating  and  including  antiseptic  dressing  

2.00 

$1.00 

Visit  including  both  antiseptic  dressings  and  necessary  operative  procedures  in 
ordinary  cases  of  contusions  lacerations  incisions  punctures  etc       .          

3.00 

1  00 

Night  visit  9  p  m  to  7  a  m 

2  50 

Office  examination  and  report,  ordinary  

1.00-2.00 

First  attention  at  office,  including  operative  procedure  and  dressing  of  ordinary 

1  00-2  00 

1.00 

Removal  foreign  body  from  conjunctive  

1.00 

1.00 

Removal  foreign  body  from  cornea                                       .             

2.00 

1.00 

MEDICAL   AND    SUEGICAL   AID. 


157 


Medical  fee  schedule — Continuad. 

AMPUTATIONS. 


First  aid. 


Subsequent  aid. 


Hospital 
or  home. 


Hip  joint $40.00  $2.00 

Thigh  at  any  point 40. 00  2. 00 

Leg  or  foot 25.00  2.00 

Shoulder  joint 40.00  2.00 

Arm  or  forearm  or  hand 25. 00  2. 00 

Metatarsal  or  metacarpal: 

Single , 10. 00  1. 50 

Two  or  more '. 15. 00  1. 50 

Fingers  or  toes: 

Single 5. 00  1. 50 

Two  or  more 10.  CO  1. 50 

FRACTURES. 

Upper  arm $12. 50  $1. 50 

Forearm: 

One  bone 10. 00  1. 50 

Both  bones 12. 50  1. 50 

Femur 25.00  1.50 

Lower  leg: 

One  bone 10.00  1.50 

Both  bones 15. 00-20. 00  1. 50 

Jaw 10.00  1.50 

Ribs,  one  or  more. 5.00  1.50 

Patella 15.00  1.50 

Pelvis 15. 00  1 . 50 

Metatarsal  or  metacarpal 5. 00  1. 50 

Fin ger  or  to e 3.00  1.50 

Two  or  more 5.00  1.50 

Scapula 10.00  1.50 

Clavicle,  full  aid 10. 00   

Nasal  bones 5. 00  1. 50 

Compound  fractures,  add  25  per  cent  for  first  aid  only. 


DISLOCATIONS,  ETC. 


Shoulder , 
Elbow... 
Hip 

Knee 

Ankle... 
Wrist... 
Finger... 


Jaw, 

Trephining  skull 

Ligating  important  arteries 

Reduction  of  ordinary  hernia  when  due  solely  to  recent  injury,  and 

applying  truss 

Reduction  of  strangulated  hernia  by  taxis 

Herniotomy 

Enucleation  of  eyeball 

General  anesthetic 

Complete  physical  examination  and  report 

Autopsy,  complete  with  written  report 

Attending  but  not  performing 

Testimony  in  court  as  to  simple  fact  of  injury 

Expert  testimony 

Passing  catheter 


§10.00 

10.00 

20.00 

10.00 

10.00 

5.00 

2.00 

5.00 

40.00 

10.00 

5.00 
10.00 
30.00 
25.00 

5.00 

3.00-5.00 

25.00 

10.00 

10.00 

15.00-25.00 

1.50 


$1.50 
1.50 
1.50 
1.50 
1.50 
1.50 
1.50 
1.50 
1.50 
1.50 

1.50 
1.50 
1.50 
1.50 


X-rays  (to  be  taken  only  upon  orders  by  the  company),  $2.50  each  for  first  two  pictures;   $2  each  for 
subsequent  pictures. 


Dated  at 


this 


day  of 


191-. 


By 


Surgeon. 
Company, 


158  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

SURGEON'S  FEE  BILL  ADOPTED  BY  THE   STATE  LIABILITY  BOARD  OF 
AWARDS,  COLUMBUS,  OHIO. 

Fractures — Reducing  and  first  dressings.  Dislocation — Reducing  and  dressings. 

(This  does  not  apply  to  cases  where  wir-     Hip $15.  00 

ing  or  other  operation  is  necessary.)  Shoulder  joint 15.  00 

Femur .  $25.00  Wrist.. 

Patella 15.00     Elbow...     8.00 

Tibia,  fibula,  or  both 12.50     Finger  or  toe 2.&C 

Clavicle 12.50     ^le': 

Scapula 15.00     Lower  jaw o.OO 

Radius,  ulna,  or  botli 10. 00 

Jaw 10. 00  Miscellaneous —  Treatment  and  dressing  of 

Humerus 15. 00  lacerated  wounds   of  soft  parts,    tears, 

Nasal  bones 5.00  burns,  scalp  wounds,  sprains,  strains, 

Ribs 5.00  contusions,     bruises,     arresting    hemor- 

Finger  or  toe 5. 00  rhages,  stitching  wounds,  etc. 

Amputations  and  first  dressings.  Ordinary  case,  first  dressing  $0.  50-$2.  00 

At  thigh $50.00  Extraordinary     case,      first 

At  shoulder  joint 50. 00         dressing 2. 00-5. 00 

At  knee 30.  00  After  dressing  (depending  on 

Of  arm 25.00  the  nature  of  the  injury        .50-2.00 

Of  both  hands 25. 00  Removing  foreign  body  from 

Of  either  hand 15.00         eye  (ordinary) 1.00 

Of  forearm 22.50  Cutting  down  and  ligating 

Of  leg..... 22.50         large  vessels 15.00 

Offoot 20.00     Trephining  skull 50.00 

Through  meta  carpus  or  tarsus.  . .  15. 00  Assistant  administering  an- 

Of  one  finger  or  toe 5. 00         aesthetic 5.  OC 

Of  each  additional  finger  or  toe .  .  2.  50     Assistant  to  surgeon 5. 00 

EXPLANATORY   NOTE   TO    MEDICAL   PROFESSION. 

The  total  charge  for  afterdressings  should  not  exceed  50  per  cent  of  the  charge  for 
first  attention,  as  per  the  fee  bill.  There  may  be  exceptions  to  this.  Such  exceptions 
will  be  thoroughly  investigated  by  the  medical  department. 

The  charges  for  reducing  dislocations  are  for  full  attention. 

Under  "Miscellaneous,"  the  charges  should  be  reasonable  and  in  proportion  to  the 
injury.  The  same  applies  to  afterdressings. 

Attention  rendered  for  other  injuries  not  listed  to  be  in  accordance  with  this  fee  bill. 

This  fee  bill  is  taken  from  a  large  number  of  county  medical  societies  and  other  fee 
bills,  and  are  the  minimum  average  reasonable  fees  collected  for  services  rendered 
injured  workmen.  It  is  to  the  interest  of  physicians  to  cooperate  with  the  board  and 
this  department  in  rendering  good  treatment  and  to  charge  reasonable  fees,  in  accord- 
ance with  this  fee  bill.  By  so  doing  you  will  aid  very  materially  in  abolishing  con- 
tract surgery,  which  has  been  used  extensively  in  the  past,  and  which  has  always 
been  objectionable  to  the  medical  profession.  We  wish  to  avoid  contract  surgery. 

The  profession  can  also  aid  by  not  rendering  "too  attentive  treatment,"  with  the 
idea  of  creating  a  large  fee.  This  will  not  be  tolerated  by  the  board,  neither  will 
aiding  an  injured  man  who  attempts  to  malinger. 

Services  rendered  to  injured  employees  are  rendered  subject  to  section  23  of  the 
workmen's  compensation  act.  An  amount  considered  reasonable  by  the  board  (using 
this  surgeon's  fee  bill  as  a  basis)  is  granted  to  the  injured  employee  for  payment  of  such 
claim.  In  nearly  every  case  the  injured  employee  signs  an  authorization  which 
authorizes  the  board  to  pay  the  amount  granted  for  medical  services,  etc.,  direct  to 
the  physician  or  person  rendering  such  services. 

NOTE. — If  the  physician  has  not  completed  the  treatment  of  the  injury,  retain  the 
fee  bill  and  return  to  the  medical  department  just  as  soon  as  treatment  is  completed. 
This  in  order  that  the  board  may  consider  the  reasonableness  of  your  fees,  and,  if 
reasonable,  that  such  amount  so  considered  may  be  allowed,  according  to  section  23 
of  the  workmen's  compensation  law. 


MEDICAL   AND   SURGICAL   AID.  159 

Before  the  State  liability  board  of  awards. 

In  the  matter  of  the  claim  of ,  for  money  to  pay  for 

medical  services,  etc .    No Physician 'a  fee  bill . 

The  following  is  an  itemized  account  of  professional  services  rendered  in  connec- 
tion with  the  treatment  of  injury  to 

of ,  the  treatment  indicated  below  and  necessary  services  ren- 
dered therefor  are  reasonable  and  not  more  than  charges  for  like  services  which  I 
render  other  injured  workmen. 


Date. 


Items. 


Amount. 


(Items  should  be  written  out  fully.     Do  not  abbreviate.) 


,M.D. 

(Signature  of  Affiant.) 

(The  above  must  be  sworn  to  if  such  a  request  is  made  by  the  board  or  the  chief 
medical  examiner.    See  rules  of  procedure  No.  XV.) 


OATH. 


STATE  OP  Omo,  COUNTY  OF ,  ss. 

,  being  first  duly  sworn,  says  that  the  facts  stated 

in  his  foregoing  fee  bill  are  true. 

,M.D. 

(Signature  of  Physician.) 


Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  the  undersigned  authority,  on  the. 
day  of ,191... 


[SEAL.] 

(Title  of  officer  taking  acknowledgments.) 

NOTE. — The  officer  taking  this  acknowledgment  is  cautioned  to  see  that  this  blank 
is  properly  filled  out  and  that  the  acknowledgment  is  properly  taken.  Acknowledg- 
ment may  be  taken  before  a  notary  public,  justice  of  the  peace,  mayor,  or  other 
officer  authorized  by  law  to  administer  paths.  Acknowledgments  may  also  be  taken 
before  a  member  or  any  inspector,  examiner,  or  traveling  auditor  of  the  State  liability 
board  of  awards. 

CERTIFICATE. 

(The  physician  is  earnestly  requested  to  fill  out  certificate  when  services  to  claimant 
are  completed.) 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  above-named  claimant  will  be  able  to  return  to  work  on 

the day  of ,  191. . .    That  from  the  nature  of  the  injury 

he  will  be  able  to  earn per  cent  of  the  wages  earned  by  him  previous  to 

the  accident. 

,  M.  D. 

SPECIAL  SURGEON'S  FEE  BILL. 

The  special  surgeon's  fee  bill  given  below  has  been  adopted  by  the  State  liability 
board  of  awards  as  being  reasonable  for  such  services  rendered  injured  workmen: 

1.  Foreign  body  on  cornea $2. 00 

2.  Cauterizing  cornea  ulcer 5.  00 

3.  Burns  of  cornea  lids,  etc.,  including  removing  burned  tissue,  cin- 

ders, etc 5.00-10.00 

4.  Lacerated  cornea,  cleaning  dirt  from  flaps,  and  cauterizing  same 5.  00-10.  00 

5.  Lacerated  cornea  with  prolapsed  iris,  amputating  prolapsed  iris,  and 

replacing  stumps 25. 00-50.  00 


160  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION". 

6.  Extraction  of  steel  from  eye >.-.  $25.  00-50.  00 

7.  Enucleating  eyeball 25.  00-35.  00 

8.  Sewing  lacerated  lids 2.  50-  5.  00 

9.  Sewing  lacerated  eyeball 10.  00 

10.  Officecalls 1.00-  1.50 

11.  Hospital  calls 1.  50-  2.  00 

12.  Plastic  operations  on  lids  and  eyeball,  following  burn  contractures. .  25.  00-50.  00 

Reducing  fracture  of  nose 5.  00 

Anesthetic  (given  by  assistant  physician) 5.  00 

NOTE. — The  above  report  must  be  sworn  to  if  such  request  is  made  by  the  board  or 
its  chief  medical  examiner.     (Rule  15.) 

STATE  OF  OHIO,  COUNTY  OF  ,  ss: 

,  being  first  duly  sworn,  says  that  the  facts 

stated  in  his  foregoing  report  are  true. 

,  M.  D. 

(Signature  of  physician.) 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  the  undersigned  authority,  on  the day 

of..  ..191.. 


[SEAL.]  

(Title  of  officer  taking  acknowledgment.) 

NOTE. — The  officer  taking  this  acknowledgment  is  cautioned  to  see  that  this  blank 
is  properly  filled  out  and  that  the  acknowledgment  is  properly  taken.  Acknowledg- 
ment may  be  taken  before  a  notary  public,  justice  of  the  peace,  mayor,  or  other  officer 
authorized  by  law  to  administer  oaths.  Acknowledgments  may  also  be  taken  before 
a  member,  or  any  inspector,  examiner,  or  traveling  auditor  of  the  State  liability  board 
of  awards. 

NOTE. — This  report  must  be  made  out  and  returned  at  once  to  the  State  liability 
board  of  awards,  Columbus,  Ohio,  in  order  that  the  injured  employe's  case  can  be 
completed  and  thereby  secure  an  early  hearing  by  the  board. 

{STATE  OF  OHIO,  STATE  LIABILITY  BOARD  OF  AWARDS,  COLUMBUS,  OHIO.    SPECIAL  SURGEON'S  REPORT.] 

Claim  No 

Case  of 

(All  questions  relating  to  part  affected  should  be  answered.     Questions  1  to  8,  inclu- 
sive, should  always  be  answered.     Questions  9  and  10  for  the  eye,  and  questions  11 
and  12  for  the  ear.) 
STATE  LIABILITY  BOARD  OF  AWARDS, 

Columbus,  Ohio. 

1 .  Name  of  injured  person Address 

2.  Age ,  Sex ,  Color ,  Nationality ,  Married, 

single,  or  divorced 

3.  Date  of  accident ,  Hour  of  day M. 

4.  State  who  rendered  first  treatment,  and  what  was  done 

5.  Give  patient's  version  of  how  accident  occurred 


6.  Was  repair  delayed  from  any  cause? : .     Was  there  any  previous  injury  to 

part  now  affected? 

7.  Is  there  any  evidence  of  syphilitic,  gonorrhoeal,  tubercular  infection;  alcohol, 

tobacco,  drugs,  or  any  occupational  disease  present  in  this  case? 

8.  WTiat  is  the  temporary  disability  in  this  case? 

The  permanent  disability? , 

EYE. 

[O.  D Vision  0.  D 

9.  Vision  uncorrected{  after 

10.  S Correction  O.  S 

10.  WTas  perimetric,  or  any  other  special  test  or  examination  necessary? 

If  so,  give  results  of  same 


MEDICAL  AND   SURGICAL  AID.  161 

EAR. 

11.  Hearing,  acoumeter,^ 

12.  Bone  conduction^; 

13.  Give  a  summary  of  the  case  as  you  see  it;  peculiar  conditions,  etc 


Kindly  use  charts  on  back  for  illustrations  when  necessary. 

Graduate  of ,19 

Date ,  19 ,  M.  D. 

HOSPITALS. 

[Extract  from  report  of  Massachusetts  Industrial  Board  for  1913.] 

The  next  problem  of  importance  was  the  relationship  of  the  hos- 
pitals to  the  act.  Many  abuses  in  connection  with  hospital  services 
under  the  act  were  discovered,  and  it  was  finally  found  necessary  to 
take  the  same  action  in  regard  to  hospitals  as  was  taken  with  the 
medical  profession.  A  meeting  with  the  hospital  administrators 
was  held  at  the  statehouse,  at  which  James  B.  Carroll,  chairman  of 
the  board,  presided,  and  a  general  discussion  of  the  hospital  problem 
was  participated  in  by  the  representatives  of  the  38  hospitals  in  at- 
tendance. 

A  special  committee,  consisting  of  Dr.  Halbert  G.  Stetson,  chair- 
man, Springfield;  Dr.  Walter  R.  Weiser,  secretary,  Springfield;  Dr. 
Walter  P.  Bowers,  Clinton;  Dr.  Fred  A.  Wash  burn,  Boston;  Dr. 
John  H.  McCullom,  Boston;  Dr.  Francis  R.  Mahoney,  Lowell;  and 
Mr.  Richard  P.  Borden,  Fall  River,  was  appointed  to  report  on  the 
hospital  problem. 

The  report  submitted  by  this  committee  follows: 

The  committee  appointed  by  your  honorable  chairman  to  consider  the  subjects  of — 

First.  Hospital  charges. 

Second.  Additional  surgical  charges. 

Third.  Recommendations  as  to  how  the  act  might  be  improved;  beg  to  herewith 
submit  their  report. 

In  considering  these  questions  the  committee  has  secured  data  from  54  hospitals  in 
the  State,  and  their  conclusions  are  based  upon  such  data,  together  with  the  experience 
of  the  members  of  the  committee. 

In  arriving  at  a  fair  charge  for  hospital  care,  we  asked  for  the  per  capita  cost  of  each 
institution.  The  average  is  found  to  be  $16.66  per  week.  The  usual  operating-room 
charge  is  $5,  but  some  charge  $10  in  unusual  cases. 

The  X-ray  charges  vary  because  of  various  ways  of  making  the  charge.  In  the 
opinion  of  the  committee,  the  radiographer  should  be  paid  for  the  examination  re- 
gardless of  the  number  of  plates  made.  It  is  to  his  ability  to  interpret  plates  and  to 
his  advice,  that  the  surgeon  owes  much  of  his  success  in  obtaining  good  results. 

Serums,  notably  that  of  tetanus,  must  be  used  in  certain  cases,  and  the  expense  is 
apt  to  be  very  great.  This  item,  together  with  special  appliances  and  special  drugs, 
should  be  paid  for  at  cost. 

In  cases  of  delirium  tremens  following  accidents,  and  a  few  other  conditions,  spe- 
cial nursing  is  a  necessity,  and  this  should  be  paid  for  at  the  usual  nursing  rates. 

We  inquired  into  the  ability  of  the  hospital  managements  to  collect  bills  from  those 
who  remained  in  the  hospital  more  than  two  weeks.  The  feeling  is  almost  unanimous 
that,  although  persistent  effort  is  made  to  collect  from  the  patient  or  friends,  the  loss 
is  enormous,  ranging  from  50  to  99  per  cent. 

Many  hospitals  claim  that  the  admission  of  industrial  accident  cases  is  a  detriment 
to  the  hospital,  because  of  this  inability  to  collect  from  long  fracture  and  septic  cases, 

30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2 11 


162  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

and  the  losses  incident  to  such  cases.  Nevertheless,  the  hospital  must  be  regarded  as 
being  the  most  desirable  place  for  the  treatment  of  all  serious  cases. 

The  following  conclusions  are  respectfully  submitted  as  the  suggestions  of  this 
committee  for  working  basis  in  the  solution  of  these  problems: 

That  the  fee  for  hospital  care  in  such  cases  should  be  $15  per  week  in  addition  to 
the  following  extras: 

Operating-room  fee,  $5. 

X-ray,  $5  for  each  examination,  without  regard  to  the  number  of  plates  made, 
except  for  examinations  of  the  head,  trunk,  or  hip,  when  a  charge  of  $10  may  be 
made. 

Serums,  special  drugs,  and  special  appliances  shall  be  charged  for  at  cost. 

Special  nurses,  when  necessary,  shall  be  paid  for  at  the  usual  price  for  each  hos- 
pital, the  maximum  charge  not  to  exceed  $4  per  day  and  $4  per  night. 

Ambulance,  $3  for  calls  within  a  radius  of  3  miles,  and  $1  for  each  additional  mile, 
the  charge  to  be  made  only  in  one  direction. 

Out-patients  shall  be  charged  a  maximum  fee  of  $2  for  the  first  attendance,  plus 
the  operating-room  fee  if  used.  For  subsequent  calls  the  charge  shall  not  exceed  $1 
for  each  visit. 

When  a  surgeon  is  employed  to  care  for  an  injured  person,  and  such  person  is  ad- 
mitted to  the  hospital,  or  when  the  custom  or  rule  of  the  hospital  provides  that  a  pa- 
tient shall  pay  the  surgeon's  fee,  the  surgeon  should,  under  the  compensation  act, 
be  entitled  to  his  proper  fees  in  addition  to  the  hospital  charges. 

That  the  period  of  time  for  which  hospital  services  shall  be  paid  by  the  association 
should  be  extended  to  such  time  as  is  necessary  or  expedient  for  the  injured  person 
to  remain  in  the  institution. 

That  the  industrial  accident  board  should  be  given  power  to  decide  upon  the  pay- 
ment of  bills  for  medical,  surgical,  and  hospital  attendance,  beyond  the  first  two 
weeks  after  injury,  in  cases  in  which  their  judgment  dictates  such  extended  attendance. 


5  A.  MALINGERING. 

[Extract  from  Massachusetts  Industrial  Commission's  Report,  1913.] 

The  industrial  accident  board  would  not  feel  it  had  done  its  full  duty  to  the  legis- 
lature if  it  did  not  call  attention  to  the  conditions  which  have  shown,  especially  in 
Europe,  a  tendency  to  sap  the  vital  elements  of  character  and  check  the  growth  of 
the  qualities  of  the  highest  value  in  national  development,  because  when  all  is  said 
and  done  the  material  well-being  of  the  wage  earner  depends  as  largely  on  his  char- 
acter as  it  does  on  the  regulations  which  law  imposes  or  assistance  which  legislatures 
can  give.  No  innovation  begun  by  a  State  can  be  stopped  at  anyone's  pleasure  or 
regulated  according  to  the  original  intention. 

One  of  the  logical,  but  most  unexpected,  developments  of  the  workmen's  com- 
pensation act  was  shown  almost  immediately  in  the  throwing  of  aged  and  infirm 
employees  out  of  industry  to  reduce  the  cost  to  certain  employers  of  insurance  pre- 
miums. One  company  in  Massachusetts,  after  a  physical  examination,  discharged 
22  employees  who  were  either  aged  or  under  par  physically  within  a  few  weeks  after 
the  act  went  into  effect.  For  instance,  employees  found  with  varicose  veins,  hard- 
ened arteries,  and  advanced  in  years,  if  injured,  would  not  be  likely  to  respond  to 
treatment,  and  a  trifling  injury  might  result  in  payment  for  total  disability  under 
the  act.  Epileptics  and  others,  who  by  reason  of  their  infirmity  would  likely  be 
injured  in  their  occupations,  when  discovered,  find  employment  more  difficult  and 
in  some  cases  impossible. 

The  State  which  has  thrown  these  employees  out  of  work  will  eventually  be  asked 
to  make  provisions  for  them,  although  the  danger  of  acts  providing  for  nonemployment 
insurance  and  superannuated  insurance  is  so  obvious  that  they  need  not  be  here 
discussed.  However,  because  such  legislation  is  dangerous  and,  if  adopted,  would 
necessarily  result  in  a  great  burden  to  the  State  it  should  be  studied  and,  if  possible, 
by  providing  against  the  need  of  it,  make  such  laws  unnecessary. 

Workmen's  compensation  acts  have  been  effective  in  some  of  the  European  States 
for  30  years  or  more.  It  is  alleged,  with  substantial  proof,  that  workmen's  compen- 
sation acts  have  been  followed  by  successful  attempts  at  malingering,  it  being  more 
difficult  year  by  year  to  get  injured  workmen  cured  of  their  injuries.  The  growth 
of  new  forms  of  nervous  diseases  arising  out  of  workmen's  compensation  acts  had 
begun  to  attract  attention  in  Germany  as  long  as  20  years  ago.  European  doctors 
are  accused  of  using  irregularly  the  workmen's  compensation  act  as  a  form  of  reve- 
nue; some  of  the  workmen  are  accused  of  exploiting  their  accidents — a  process  so 
human  and  easy  to  understand  that  it  is  quite  a  normal  and  psychical  proceeding. 
It  does  not  follow  that  all  these  cases  of  simulation  are  wholly  fraudulent,  because 
there  is  nearly  always  ground  for  making  the  original  claim.  German  literature  on 
this  subject  gives  the  case  of  a  man  who  hoodwinked  the  insurance  authorities  in 
Berlin  for  the  payment  of  50  per  cent  of  his  average  weekly  wages  for  a  disability 
arising  out  of  industry  and  who  was  accidentally  discovered  to  be  following  the  occu- 
pation of  an  acrobat  in  Alsace.  Another  case  has  been  quoted  where  a  man  draw- 
ing disability  payment  for  an  injured  elbow  at  the  same  time  under  another  name 
was  earning  a  living  as  a  pugilist.1 

These  cases  are  not  manifesting  themselves  in  great  numbers  in  Massachusetts, 
but  there  are  already  indications  that  before  long  they  will  be  of  sufficient  importance 
to  constitute  a  problem. 

Such  cases  involve  aliens  of  a  certain  type,  temperamentally  nervous,  alcoholics, 
whose  vital  energy  and  stamina  have  become  undermined;  the  subnormal,  neu- 
rotics, and  those  suffering  from  various  forms  of  nervous  diseases.  The  lazy  and 
incompetent — the  failures  in  industry — may  prefer,  after  injury,  to  receive  one-half 
their  average  weekly  wage  for  an  indefinite  period  rather  than  trying  to  get  work  at 
their  old  or  in  any  occupation. 

The  object  of  the  act  is  to  return  people  to  industry;  one  of  the  effects  of  the  act 
is  that  people  refuse  to  go  to  work  while  they  are  in  pain.  Before  the  act  went  into 
effect  the  uninsured  workman  with  a  broken  leg,  whose  muscles  became  contracted 

l  "National  Insurance  and  National  Character."    Edinburgh  Review,  July,  1913. 

163 


164  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

and  partially  atrophied,  because  of  the  fracture,  was  forced  by  necessity  to  go  to  work, 
and  did  go  to  work.  Every  day  he  found  that  the  pain  was  less  and  less,  and  it  soon 
disappeared.  The  injured  employee  receiving  half  or  more  of  his  average  weekly 
wage  under  a  compensation  act,  and  who  for  any  reason  is  not  ambitious,  may,  and 
sometimes  does,  refuse  to  go  to  work  while  there  is  any  pain  in  the  injured  part.  The 
longer  such  injured  employees  stay  away  from  work  the  harder  it  is  for  them  ever  to 
go  to  work;  and  unless  prompt  and  stringent  means  are  taken  to  force  them  back  into 
employment  it  is  not  long  until  the  atrophy  becomes  permanent,  and  the  injured 
employee  becomes  a  charge  on  the  law  up  to  full  period  of  total  disability,  and  sub- 
sequently on  private  or  public  charity.  This  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  The  ordinary 
person  after  a  fortnight's  vacation  in  the  summer  time  finds  it  difficult  on  his  return 
to  start  to  work,  and  if  the  incentive  to  remain  away  at  vacation  on  half  pay  could  be 
supplied  it  is  probable  that  summer  vacations  would  be  extended  longer  than  they 
are  to-day. 

Some  workmen  who  are  victims  of  bad  advice  or  afraid  of  pain  refuse  to  accept  the 
medical  or  surgical  services  offered  by  the  insurance  companies,  which  is  necessary 
to  put  them  back  on  a  working  basis.  To  remedy  this  defect  in  the  Massachusetts 
law  it  is  suggested  that  section  19,  paragraph  D,  of  the  Illinois  law  should  be  added 
as  an  amendment  to  the  act,  which  says: 

"  If  any  employee  shall  persist  in  insanitary  or  injurious  practices  which  tend  to 
either  imperil  or  retard  his  recovery,  or  shall  refuse  to  submit  to  such  medical  or 
surgical  treatment  as  is  reasonably  essential  to  promote  his  recovery,  the  board  may, 
in  its  discretion,  reduce  or  suspend  the  compensation  of  any  such  injured  employee." 

The  principal  danger  of  malingering,  which  up  to  now  has  not  been  very  great  in 
Massachusetts,  is  not  in  the  cost  of  insurance  to  employers,  or  its  effect  on  the  profits 
of  the  insurance  companies;  but  the  great  danger  of  the  spread  of  these  practices  is 
to  the  workingman  himself,  because  nothing  more  quickly  undermines  energy  and 
self-respect  than  this  practice,  the  consequences  of  which  are  permanent  and  hit  him 
when  he  is  down. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  board  the  way  to  prevent  the  growth  of  practices  which  have 
made  similar  acts  odious  in  Europe  is: 

First.  The  establishment  of  a  definite  medical  policy  regarding  injuries,  so  that 
as  far  as  possible  and  human  all  injuries  shall  be  judged  on  a  uniform  basis.  Every 
time  the  board  is  outwitted  by  a  malingerer  the  precedent  is  important.  The  board 
needs  a  medical  adviser  whose  duty  it  will  be  to  pass  on  the  medical  problems  which 
rise  out  of  industrial  injuries.  A  competent  medical  adviser  will  assist  the  board 
in  fairly  and  uniformly  administering  the  law,  and  while  benefiting  the  employee 
whose  injury  is  genuine  and  disability  honest,  will  prevent  the  malingerer  from 
getting  benefits  which  are  not  deserved;  and 

Second.  To  give  the  industrial  accident  board  authority  to  hire  or  establish  one 
or  more  wards  in  hospitals,  located  to  serve  the  industrial  centers  of  the  Commonwealth, 
where  doubtful  cases  of  disability  may  be  sent  at  the  discretion  of  the  board  for  observa- 
tion and  study,  the  cost  to  be  assessed  pro  rata  on  the  insurance  companies. 


NO.  6.  ACCEPTANCES    AND   REJECTIONS    OF  ELECTIVE    ACTS   BY 

EMPLOYERS. 

The  reasons  given  for  accepting  the  acts  in  various  States  vary,  but 
they  do  not  in  any  case  necessarily  show  that  the  employer  is  entirely 
satisfied  with  the  particular  compensation  act  under  which  he  is 
working.  They  do  &how  either  that  he  is  satisfied  with  the  principle 
of  compensation  or  believes  that  the  particular  act  has  more  merit 
than  demerit  from  the  point  of  view  of  his  needs. 

The  reasons  given  by  employers  for  rejecting  the  act  are  valuable 
mainly  from  the  standpoint  of  legislation,  as  they  frequently  suggest 
some  clefect  in  the  law  which  caused  the  employer  to  reject  it. 

While  many  employers  have  accepted  the  law  because  they  believe 
in  the  principle  of  compensation  and  regard  the  system  as  in  tended  % 
to  be  fair  and  just  to  both  employer  and  employee,  others  have  aoted* 
from  a  merely  practical  motive,  as,  for  example,  by  advice  of  their 
insurance  agent,  or  for  the  reason  that  the  act  tends  to  avert  litiga- 
tion or  leads  to  prompt  settlements  and  fixes  definitely  the  amount 
of  liability.     Many,  in  replying,  have  frankly  stated  that  their  reason 
or  accepting  the  law  was  the  fact  that  their  defenses  under  the 
iability  act  were  removed  by  the  statute. 

CALIFORNIA. 

Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — California,  in  the  reports  of  employers 
who  have  accepted  the  act,  reflects  a  variety  of  motives  for  favorable 
action.  A  company  employing  450  persons  in  manufacturing  electric 
heating  appliances  went  in  under  the  act  "  because  the  principle  is 
goqd."  A  department  store  with  500  employees  said,  "  Under  the 
compensation  a  portion  of  our  insurance  premiums  is  likely  to  reach 
injured  employees.  Under  ordinary  liability,  no  part,  or  a  very 
small  part,  of  the  amount  paid  out  by  us  in  premiums  may  reach 
injured  employees."  A  telephone  company  regards  it  as  "fair  to 
both  sides."  A  firm  with  30  employees  preparing  "upper  leather" 
assigns  as  its  motive  "equity."  A  firm  of  building  contractors  says 
that  they  are  "wholly  in  sympathy  with  its  purpose."  A  metal- 
weld  company  with  12  on  the  pay  roll  "accepted  for  reasons  both 
humane  and  financial;  cost  in  case  of  accidents  limited  to  reasonable 
amount."  A  manufacturer  of  pumps,  gas  engines,  and  general 
jobbing,  20  employees:  "More  satisfactory  than  carrying  insurance, 
and  we  think  it  a  just  act;  employees  should  be  projected."  Purely 
financial  considerations  are  avowed  in  many  cases:  "Figured  it  put 
us  on  a  definite  basis  for  settlements,  and  we  know  '  where  we  are 
at. "  "Seemed  more  economical  than  insurance  and  more  practical 
of  adjustment  with  more  fairness  to  both  parties."  "Insurance 
company  advised  and  issued  policy  only  on  condition  that  we  did." 
"Ordinary  protection  becomes  decided  and  less  opportunity  for  con- 
tested claims;  as  good  for  one  as  the  other."  "The  company's 
lawyers  advised  that  it  would  be  the  most  economical  under  the 

165 


166  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

laws."  "Good  insurance."  "To  avoid  uncertain  damage  liability." 
Sentiment  has  a  place  in  not  a  few  of  the  reports:  "Personally  we 
believe  it  wise.  We  believe  we  have  the  best  governed  State  in  the 
Union,  and  that  the  State  legislature  and  government  knew  what 
they  were  doing  when  they  passed  the  law."  "Our  liability  insur- 
ance company  asked  us  to  do  so, "  is  th?  report  of  a  laundry  with  75 
employees.  An  electric,  water,  and  gas  company,  with  "250  em- 
ployees, reports:  "We  believed  that  it  would  be  cheaper  for  the  com- 
Eany,  more  equitable  for  its  employees,  and  likely  to  discourage 
tigation  instigated  and  fostered  by  third  parties."  "This  plan  of 
insurance  was  accepted  in  the  hope  that  definite  amounts  for  specific 
injuries  arranged  according  to  schedule  by  law  would  give  much 
more  satisfactory  feeling  between  employer  and  employee."  "We 
considered  it  better  for  us  and  our  employees  to  let  the  matter  of  com- 
pensation be  settled  by  State  commission  rather  than  by  the  courts."- 
"Accepted  compensation  act  because  we  felt  our  employees  were 
entitled  to  some  consideration  in  case  of  accident,  which  could  easily 
be  provided  by  insurance." 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — Among  the  reported  rejections  one  is 
from  a  fruit  cannery,  giving  1,000  as  the  number  of  employees.  Of 
the  act  is  said:  "It  is  so  complicated  that  we  have  never  had  a  full 
understanding  of  it.  Most  large  concerns  have  not  accepted."  A 
gas  and  electric  corporation  which  has  1,100  employees  reports, 
"Having  had  little  or  no  trouble  in  former  years  with  our  employees 
in  the  matter  of  adjustments  on  account  of  accidents,  we  have  delayed 
our  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  compensation  act  of  this  State." 
A  dry  goods  house  with  575  persons  in  its  employ  writes,  "Acceptance 
of  act  and  carrying  insurance  therefor  meant  an  increase  in  the  cost 
of  our  insurance  coverage  of  several  hundred  per  cent.  We  make  a 
practice  of  paying  full  lost  time  for  accidents  and  insuring  our  legal 
liability  only,  both  of  which  combined  make  it  cheaper  than  the 
acceptance  of  the  compensation  act." 

ILLINOIS. 

Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — Illinois,  judging  by  the  reports  re- 
ceived, has  its  new  compensation  act  brought  to  a  form  acceptable  to 
many  important  manufacturing  interests.  Many  of  the  replies  to  the 
request  for  reasons  for  accepting  the  act  give  purely  financial  ex- 
planations: "Figured  there  was  nothing  to  be  gained  by  rejecting  it. 
Insurance  rates  as  high  one  way  as  the  other.  Also  figured  some- 
thing of  this  kind  was  bound  to  come  and  we  might  as  well  support 
it  first  as  last."  "We  considered  it  advantageous,  because  the  com- 
pensations were  limited  to  certain  amounts."  "Legal  penalties  im- 
posed on  nonacceptance."  "Because  it  specifically  states  amount  to 
which  injured  person  is  entitled."  A  bottle  manufacturer  having 
2,800  employees  wrote,  "  Rejected  for  one  year,  not  knowing  just  what 
the  new  law  meant  to  us,  but  since  May  20,  1913,  we  have  accepted, 
and  mighty  glad  of  it."  Another  employer  writes,  "The  insurance 
rates  of  the  liability  companies  were  considered  too  high  and  we  be- 
lieved we  could  get  better  results  in  dollars  and  cents  and  in  keeping 
down  accidents  to  employees."  A  company  of  sole-leather  cutters, 
325  employees,  "  The  general  consensus  of  opinion  among  pur  business 
friends  favors  accepting  the  act;  reason,  a  more  definite  hazard." 


ACCEPTANCES   AND  REJECTIONS.  167 

A  manufacturer  of  folding  cartons,  corrugated  paper,  etc.,  1,300 
employees,  "  We  believed  it  was  to  our  interest  to  do  so."  " Other- 
wise we  are  deprived  of  practically  all  defenses."  "Did  not  care  to 
risk  paying  heavy  damages. "  "  The  new  act  defines  our  liability,  and 
is  therefore  preferable  to  the  uncertainty  incident  to  the  common-law 
practice."  "We  are  a  public-utility  corporation  and  do  not  wish  to 
antagonize  either  our  employees  or  the  public;  accepting  the  law 
puts  us  beyond  criticism  in  the  handling  of  accidents  to  employees; 
it  also  gives  us  a  definite  amount  each  month  to  charge  on  our  books 
account  of  injuries."  The  foregoing  replies  are  illustrative  of  many. 
Others  run:  "Saves  time  and  trouble";  "More  definite  as  to  the 
compensation  due";  "A  safe  business  proposition."  Broad  views 
are  not  infrequently  taken.  A  company  manufacturing  tin  cans, 
boxes,  and  metal  specialties,  100  employees,  writes:  "We  believe  that 
the  compensation  plan  is  a  step  in  the  right  direction.  We  believe 
that  fair  and  equitable  remuneration  is  due  an  injured  employee 
regardless  of  the  cause  of  the  accident";  a  farm-implements  manu- 
facturer, 2,000  employees,  "We  were  already  operating  a  similar  plan 
and  had  few  changes  to  make";  "Ultimately  to  gain  best  results 
both  for  employer  and  employee";  "Because  by  accepting  and  carry- 
ing insurance  we  knew  just  what  our  annual  expense  would  be  and 
because  we  thought  by  so  doing  more  compensation  would  reach  the 
workman  and  less  absorbed  in  lawyers'  fees";  "We  think  it  a  good 
thing  for  an  injured  man  to  be  helped  by  his  employer,  and  not  fought 
in  the  courts,  to  aid  the  insurance  companies";  "Since  accepting  we 
have  had  absolutely  no  more  difficulties  with  our  employees  and  have 
done  away  with  all  compensation  lawsuits."  A  printing,  binding, 
and  lithographing  company,  110  employees,  "We  considered  it  a 
good,  fair  method  on  account  of  advantage  to  the  laboring  classes"; 
a  watch-manufacturing  company  with  3,000  employees  says:  "Be- 
cause we  are  in  sympathy  with  the  purpose  of  the  act  and  we  believe 
in  following  the  laws  of  the  State";  a  Chicago  wholesale  clothing  com- 
pany, 550  employees,  "For  protection  given  both  employer  and  em- 
ployee"; a  lumber  company,  also  manufacturers  of  tin  boxes,  900 
employees,  "In  view  of  our  having  been  deprived  of  the  three  princi- 
pal defenses  formerly  allowed  by  law  we  considered  it  better  to  oper- 
ate under  the  act";  a  company  making  metal  beds  and  spring  beds, 
175  employees,  "We  thought  it  a  just  act  on  the  whole,  and  were 
willing  to  give  it  a  trial";  a  company  manufacturing  furniture, 
"Think  it  best  to  be  good";  a  brewing  company,  500  employees, 
"In  favor  of  workingmen's  compensation";  a  steel  and  wire  company, 
500  employees,  "Because  we  believe  in  compensation  for  disabled 
employees";  a  foundry  with  2,500  employees,  "Better  for  workmen"; 
a  machinery  company,  1,100  to  1,200  employees,  "Believe  that  in 
the  long  run  it  would  work  to  the  advantage  of  both  the  company 
and  its  employees."  A  foundry  producing  malleable-iron  castings, 
with  750  employees,  writes,  "Not  enough  experience  to  say  which  is 
better."  A  hosiery  company,  150  employees,  was  "advised  by  the 
insurance  companies."  A  plate  and  window  glass  jobbing  house 
with  100  employees  reports,  "Our  experience  with  insurance  com- 
panies had  previously  been  so  unsatisfactory  and  we  felt  that  it  was  a 
wise  law."  A  company  manufacturing  "specialties"  says,  "Believe 
that  the  burden  of  accidents  to  employees  should  fall  on  the  em- 


168  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

ployers  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  machinery."  A  hardware  manu- 
facturer, 200  employees,  "  We  would  be  glad  to  pay  to  our  employees 
a  reasonable  compensation  for  accidents,  rather  than  to  an  insurance 
company." 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — A  company  making  wooden  boxes, 
80  employees,  says,  "  We  filed  against  the  act  in  1912  for  the  reason 
that  we  believed  same  unconstitutional  and  could  secure  the  same 
protection  with  our  liability  insurance  company,  whether  we  rejected 
or  accepted  the  compensation  act.  Since  then  our  State  has  put  in  a 
new  compensation  act  of  1913,  repealing  the  act  effective  May  1, 
1912,  and  we  have  just  recently  advised  the  industrial  board  at 
Springfield  that  we  will  come  within  and  be  bound  by  the  provisions 
of  this  act."  A  coal-mining  company,  with  1,100  employees,  " Prin- 
cipally because  so  few  mining  corporations  have  accepted,  and  the 
added  cost  by  reason  of  act  hinders  us  in  competition  with  companies 
in  other  States  where  no  compensation  law  exists."  A  company 
making  and  printing  envelopes,  250  employees,  "  Approve  the  prin- 
ciple involved,  but  consider  the  Illinois  law  unfair  in  that  it  makes 
good  risks  and  carefully  managed  plants  suffer  for  the  deficiencies  of 
poor  risks.  We  have  never  had  a  serious  injury,  deal  with  our  em- 
ployees liberally,  and  prefer  to  do  so  outside  the  new  law."  A  job 
printing  and  binding  establishment  writes,  "From  our  experience  we 
believed  we  could  better  afford  to  stay  out  of  it."  A  box  factory, 
with  100  employees,  "  First,  account  of  excessive  rate  charged  by 
employers'  liability  insurance  companies  to  carry  risks  under  the  act; 
second,  account  small  per  cent  of  accidents  we  have  had  past  15 
years,  we  have  concluded  to  carry  own  risk  and  take  chances  should 
any  trouble  arise."  One  small  employer,  "Did  not  think  it  would  be 
enforced";  another,  "Lack  of  understanding  of  its  intentions"; 
another,  "Too  expensive";  another,  "Insurance  lower."  A  company 
manufacturing  paving  brick  rives  the  following:  "In  cases  of  in- 
juries, etc.,  we  prefer  to  settle  with  injured  for  lump  sum  rather 
than  weekly  payments.  We  also  pay  doctor  and  hospital  bills." 

KANSAS. 

Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — A  cement  manufacturing  concern  in 
Kansas,  one  of  the  employers  who  at  first  stood  aloof  from  the  reach 
of  the  law,  but  who  has  recently  accepted  it,  writes,  "At  the  time  the 
workmen's  compensation  act  took  effect  we  did  not  come  under  the 
act,  on  the  advice  of  our  attorneys.  Since  then,  however,  several 
amendments  were  passed  at  the  last  session  of  our  legislature.  These, 
together  with  the  experience  we  have  had  during  the  past  year,  and 
the  further  fact  that  many  of  the  insurance  companies  are  now  willing 
to  write  policies  under  tne  act  at  practically  the  same  price  as  they 
previously  wrote  when  not,  under  the  act,  convinces  us  that  it  will 
be  to  our  advantage  to  make  the  change."  A  brickmaker,  with  175 
employees,  regards  the  act  as  "safer  and  fairly  equitable."  A  com- 
pany manufacturing  soaps  and  glycerine,  300  employees,  writes, 
We  believe  a  compensation  act  the  logical  method  of  handling 
industrial  accidents."  A  chemical  company,  with  150  employees, 
says,  "Affords  employer  certain  protection  and  gives  a  definite  lia- 
bility." A  company  .manufacturing  vitrified  bricks  and  tiles  reports, 
"We  believe  it  is  the  fairest  thing  for  the  employer  and  employee  yet 


ACCEPTANCES   AND   REJECTIONS.  169 

offered,  as  it  is  definite  and  concise  and  avoids  expensive  outlay  in 
legal  employment."  Several  employers  accepting  report  as  "acting 
under  advice  of  our  attorney." 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — Among  the  rejections,  one,  reported 
by  a  firm  of  plumbing  and  heating  contractors  employing  25  to  75 
persons,  had  this  statement,  "We  thought  the  original  law  unfair  in 
that  in  case  of  fatal  accident,  dependents  were  privileged  to  disre- 
gard compensation  act  and  bring  suit  under  former  laws.  This  was 
changed  by  the  last  legislature,  and  we  shall  probably  accept  the  act 
at  the  expiration  of  present  liability  policy."  A  structural  steel  and 
foundry  company  says,  "We  think  the  law  needs  revising.  We  favor 
compensation  as  it  is  in  Illinois."  That  they  "can  handle  losses  to 
better  advantage,"  or  "it  is  too  one-sided,"  or  "think  it  is  unreason- 
able and  too  stringent,"  or  that  the  liability  rate  is  excessive,  are 
among  the  reasons  offered  by  other  employers  for  not  accepting. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — In  Massachusetts,  where  the  act  was 
very  rapidly  and  generally  accepted  by  employers,  we  find  employers 
giving  the  following  reasons:  A  manufacturer  of  worsted  and 
woolen  yarns  employing  325  people  said:  "Because  we  considered 
compensation  an  equitable  arrangement."  A  company  of  felt 
manufacturers,  with  525  employees,  said:  "Affords  a  reasonable  and 
equitable  way  of  settling  questions  of  injuries  to  workmen."  The 
response  made  by  a  manufacturer  of  steamfitters'  supplies,  with 
1,200  employees,  was:  "We  believe  in  a  compensation  act,  and 
believe  it  should  have  the  support  of  all  manufacturers."  A 
shoe  manufacturer  employing  1,300  people  gave  the  following 
comprehensive  answer:  We  believe  in  the  act  from  two  stand- 
points; first,  the  workmen  should  receive  a  definite  compensa- 
tion for  industrial  accidents,  irrespective  of  the  negligence  of 
his  employer,  and  without  the  necessity  for  employing  an  attorney 
and  proceeding  in  the  courts  with  the  delay  and  hardship  involved; 
second,  the  employer  should  be  free  from  liability  of  litigation, 
attorneys'  fees,  and  exorbitant  damages."  A  jute  and  hemp 
manufacturer  employing  3,200  persons  said:  "Our  reasons  for  accept- 
ing the  act  were,  first,  the  expense  to  us  under  its  provisions  promised 
to  be  less  than  before;  and,  second,  we  believe  in  the  enactment  of  a 
compensation  law,  and  thought  on  the  whole  that  the  provisions 
of  trie  Massachusetts  law  were  good."  A  manufacturer  of  linen 
thread  and  twines,  500  employees,  said:  "  We  have  always  believed 
in  the  payment  of  compensation  rather  than  settlement  of  liability; 
furthermore,  we  consider  that  under  the  Massachusetts  act  accept- 
ance is  practically  compulsory  as  the  principal  defenses  are  removed 
if  employer  fails  to  accept  the  act."  Some  employers  report  a 
belief  in  the  law  as  "just,"  or  "a  good  thing,"  or  "a  progressive 
step,"  or  "a  safeguard  against  all  suits."  One  accepted  it  "for  the 
good  of  Massachusetts."  A  brewer  with  63  employees  writes:  "We 
thought  it  appealed  to  us  as  not  furnishing  the  possibilities  for  abuse 
that  pur  insurance  suffered  previous  to  the  compensation  act."  A 
printing  establishment  employing  between  100  and  125  wrote: 

Because  we  think  it  is  fair  to  the  employees,  and  the  printers  of  the 
United  Typothetse  of  America  five  years  ago  at  the  convention  at 


170  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Detroit  took  the  stand  that  the  business  should  pay  for  injuries, 
and  a  resolution  was  passed  instructing  each  typothetae  to  urge  the 
passage  of  the  act."  An  electric  illuminating  company  of  Boston 
with  1,800  employees  said:  " Appreciation  of  protection  afforded 
and  the  fairness  of  the  act  as  a  whole."  A  manufacturer  of  women's 
slippers  with  435  employees  said:  " First,  we  are  in  sympathy  with 
the  act.  It  solved  the  problem  of  our  being  able  to  do  something 
for  our  employees  who  are  injured  by  a  method  other  than  through 
recourse  to  the  courts;  and,  second,  we  think  it  safer  to  do  business 
availing  ourselves  of  the  protection  which  the  act  gives  us."  A 
manufacturer  of  pressed  steel  with  250  employees  said:  "  We  accepted 
this  act  because  we  thought  it  best  for  the  interest  of  both  ourselves 
and  of  our  employees."  A  manufacturer  of  shoe  heels  employing 
350  persons  thought  it  "best  that  the  State  should  be  assisted  in 
trying  to  work  out  improved  insurance  and  compensation  plan  for 
employees  and  employers."  Another  employer  said:  " Acceptance 
seemed  reasonable,  logical,  and  in  accord  with  the  spirit  of  the 
times,"  while  a  corporation  employing  4,000  persons  said:  "The  act 
in  its  general  features  appealed  to  us  as  being  good."  Those 
accepting  the  act  for  the  reason  that  their  defenses  were  taken  away 
make  such  statements  as:  "We  accepted  the  compensation  plan  as,  if 
we  -did  not  we  should  have  to  take  our  chances  with  the  common 
law,  with  the  ordinary  defenses,  viz.,  that  the  employee  was  neg- 
ligent, that  the  injury  was  caused  by  the  negligence  of  another 
employee,  that  the  employee  assumed  risk  of  employment,  removed. 
Refusal  to  accept  deprived  us  of  important  defenses  in  case  of  suit, 
unjustly  so,  we  believe."  A  corporation  engaged  in  freight-car 
building  with  450  employees  said:  "Accepted  mainly  for  the  reason 
that  under  the  present  State  law  the  defense  of  negligence  of  a  fellow 
employee  is  wholly  eliminated."  A  shoe  manufacturer  employing 
600  persons  said :  ' '  We  supposed  we  were  protecting  our  employees, 
also  ourselves,  from  suits  for  damages." 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — In  Massachusetts  some  large  emplov- 
ers  rejected  the  act  for  the  reasons  that  they  desired  to  carry  their 
own  risk  without  insurance,  which  they  could  not  do  under  the  Mas- 
sachusetts law,  and  that  they  had  their  particular  plan  of  compensa- 
tion in  operation  directly  with  their  employees.  A  hemlock  bark  and 
lumbering  company  with  100  employees  replied,  "Have  paid  no 
attention  to  it;  think  it  unfair."  A  steamship  company  having 
approximately  300  employees,  a  large  proportion  of  whom  are  hourly 
laborers,  said,  "We  have  not  accepted  the  act  on  account  of  insurance 
feature.  That  feature  we  regard  as  making  the  rule  unfair  and 
impracticable  to  large  employers.  In  Rhode  Island,  where  similar 
act  was  passed  without  the  insurance  feature,  we  have  accepted  the 
act."  A  dry  goods  house  with  80  to  90  employees  said,  "Not  tried 
it  yet;  wanted  to  watch  its  workings  for  a  year  or  two  until  it  got 
settled  to  a  legitimate  basis."  Among  the  large  employers  who 
rejected  it  was  one  with  3,800  employees,  which  replied,  "Rejected. 
Proposed  rate  of  insurance  would  cost  us  several  times  more  than  our 
present  liability  arrangement  for  employees."  Another  replied,  "Pre- 
mium cost  too  high,"  while  a  sewing  machine  company  reported, 
"Because  of  cost  of  insurance  (about  $3,000).  Our  custom  has  been 
for  several  years  to  pay  injured  employees  for  full  time  while  inca- 


ACCEPTANCES   AND   REJECTIONS.  171 

pacitated,  also  all  doctors'  bills  for  them,  resulting  in  average  pay- 
ment on  this  account  in  less  than  $500.  We  have  never  been  sued 
but  once,  and  that  was  settled  before  going  to  jury.  Fortunately, 
none  of  the  accidents  have  been  serious."  Another  large  company 
employing  several  thousand  men  said,  "The  company  has  adopted  a 
plan  of  its  own,  entitled  'Plan^  for  employees'  pensions,  disability 
benefits,  and  insurance,'  which  it  believes  is  more  liberal  and  benefi- 
cial to  its  employees  than  the  compensation  act."  A  concern  with 
3,500  to  4,000  employees  said,  "We  believed  that  it  would  be  less 
expensive  to  insure  under  a  common-law  liability  and  that  our 
employees  would  be  as  well  and  as  fully  protected  as  under  the 
compensation  act." 

MICHIGAN. 

Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — In  Michigan,  acceptance  of  the  law 
has  been  quite  general  among  the  employers  reporting.  Following 
are  quotations  from  the  returns  of  large  companies  that  have  accepted 
the  act:  A  copper  mining  company  with  993  employees,  "It  does 
away  with  damage  suits  wherein  in  case  the  company  loses  the 
employee  gets  little  benefit,  the  lawyers  taking  most."  A  motor  car 
company,  6,700  employees,  "Because  of  our  belief  in  the  principles 
of  workmen's  compensation  and  desire  to  give  our  employees  the 
benefit  of  the  law's  provisions."  A  manufacturer  of  cans,  sheet- 
metal  goods,  and  auto  radiators,  400  employees,  "By  accepting,  we 
believed  injured  employees  would  receive  full  benefit  of  compensation 
instead  of  having  to  divide  it  with  attorneys."  A  refrigerator  com- 

Eanv,  450  employees,  "It  is  a  good  law.  Every  workman  gets  pay 
3r  his  injuries.  Shyster  lawyers  are  out  of  a  job."  A  stove-manu- 
facturing company  employing  1,250  people,  "Accepted  act  for  best 
interests  of  our  employees."  A  car  and  foundry  company,  4,000 
employees,  "Could  not  afford  to  act  under  common  law  and  think 
compensation  is  best  for  both  employer  and  employee."  A  manu- 
facturer of  heavy  chemicals,  1,500  employees,  "First,  act  removed  all 
of  common  defenses  and  put  us,  if  we  did  not  accept,  at  the  mercy  of 
unscrupulous  attorneys;  second,  act  seemed  fair  to  Doth  employer  and 
employee."  A  manufacturer  of  soda  ash,  1,700  employees,  "We 
believe  it  is  a  good  thing  for  both  parties.  It  eliminates  lawsuits  and 
lessens  the  work  of  the  courts.  It  gives  all  the  compensation  to  the 
employee  without  his  paying  any  lawyer's  fees.  It  fixes  the  amount 
the  employer  must  pay,  and  enables  him  to  provide  for  it  in  advance." 
An  electricity,  steam-heating,  ice-manufacturing,  and  commercial 
gauge  company,  150  employees,  "Accepted  as  a  just  method  of  han- 
dling the  injuries  to  employees  who  in  the  past  have  been  neglected; 
also  protects  corporations  from  questionable  lawyers  getting 
employees  to  be  disloyal  to  their  employers."  A  cement-manufac- 
turing company  with  285  employees,  "We  regard  the  Michigan  work- 
men's compensation  law  as  one  of  the  best  yet  passed  by  any  of  the 
States,  and  we  accepted  it  because  we  think  it  gives  a  square  deal  to 
both  employer  and  employee  and  puts  the  '  ambulance  chasers '  out 
of  business."  A  sugar-refining  company  having  from  400  to  500 
employees,  "We  believe  the  act  to  be  conservative  and  fair  both  to 
employer  and  employee,  and  would  do  away  very  largely,  if  not 


172  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

entirely,  with  the  lawsuits  arising  from  employees  being  urged  by  a 
certain  class  of  attorneys  to  sue  their  employers  for  some  real  or 
imagined  grievance."  A  furniture  company,  400  employees,  "The 
inequitable  adjustment  (substantially  extortion)  generally  existing 
between  the  attorney  and  injured  claimant;  also  in  the  hope  that  we 
would  be  relieved  from  the  ambulance-chasing  attorney."  A  copper- 
mining  company,  200  employees,  "Believe  it  is  right  and  proper,  and 
leaves  a  better  feeling  between  employer  and  employee."  A  light- 
ing and  traction  company,  150  employees,  "We  thought  it  to  the 
best  interest  of  our  employees  as  well  as  ourselves."  A  motor-manu- 
facturing company  having  over  12,000  employees,  "Because  we 
believe  it  to  be  much  better  for  all  parties  interested  than  the  old 
law,  including  the  State."  Another  motor-manufacturing  company 
with  1,400  employees,  "Consider  the  act  as  it  stands  best  for  employee 
and  employer;  after  one  year's  trial,  very  satisfactory."  A  copper- 
mining  company,  389  employees,  "Consider  it  fairer  and  better  for 
both  parties."  A  steel-products  manufacturing  company,  500 
employees,  "It  is  at  present  the  fairest  method  of  dealing  with  this 
problem,  both  to  employee  and  employer.  If  changed  and  made 
more  stringent  we  will  probably  refuse  it."  A  salt  and  lumber  manu- 
facturing company,  485  employees,  "  For  the  reason  that  it  fixes  the 
compensation  to  be  paid,  thereby  doing  away  with  long  and  expensive 
legal  controversies."  A  company  manufacturing  woodenware  and 
lumber,  450  employees,  "Willing  to  give  it  a  trial;  also  as  a  matter  of 
policy.  It  is  really  compulsory,  for  one  not  under  the  act  would  have 
practically  no  defense  against  suit.  All  at  issue  would  be  amount 
of  damages,  and  prefer  to  have  that  fixed  by  law  than  left  to  a  jury." 
A  firm  of  ship  and  engine  builders  employing  1,000  to  2,000  persons 
gives  this  reply:  "(1)  It  was  made  practically  compulsory  to  accept 
the  law,  because  if  not  accepted  the  penalties  are  too  great  to  risk; 
(2)  because  the  Michigan  law  is  a  reasonable  one  and  fixes  an  employ- 
er's liability,  making  it  possible  to  adjust  accident  claims  on  a  busi- 
ness basis  without  lawyers,  court  costs,  and  delays."  An  electric 
traveling  crane  company  says,  "All  defense  removed  by  law  if  act  re- 
jected." A  coal-mining  company,  3,000  employees,  "Couldn't  afford 
not  to.  Act,  though  theoretically  elective,  practically  is  compulsory." 
A  wholesale  lumber  and  planing  mill,  200  employees,  replies,  "Com- 
pulsion"; similar  answers  come  from  a  lumber  company,  150 
employees;  another  with  300  employees;  a  wholesale  hardware  firm, 
200  employees ;  a  malleable  castings  company,  600  employees ;  a  paper- 
manufacturing  company,  200  employees;  an  iron-mining  company, 
275  employees;  a  maker  of  sash  doors  and  interior  finish,  200  em- 
ployees; a  jobbing  foundry,  500  employees;  an  engine  and  thrasher 
company,  400  employees;  a  gas  company,  1,200  employees;  a  Detroit 
lumber  company,  450  employees.  "Tx>  escape  lawyers  and  litiga- 
tion" was  the  reason  given,  in  varied  phraseology,  by:  A  foundry  and 
metal-manufacturing  company,  175  employees;  a  lumber-manufac- 
turing company,  425  employees;  a  building-material  company,  20 
employees;  an  iron-ore-mining  company,  45  employees;  a  brewing 
and  malt-liquor  company,  36  employees;  a  company,  "school  and 
auditorium  seating,"  300  employees.  The  answer,  "Because  we 
believe  it  a  good  act  for  both  employer  and  employee,"  is  in  one  form 
or  another  given  by  many  firms,  large  and  small;  for  example,  "We 
thought  it  was  better  to  have  compensation  fixed  and  also  to  know 


ACCEPTANCES  AND   REJECTIONS.  173 

that  the  employee  would  get  all  his  due."  A  railroad  company,  5,000 
employees,  "Very  satisfactory."  An  automobile-manufacturing 
company,  5,000  employees,  "Because  we  considered  the  act  as  just 
and  necessary."  A  pharmaceutical  and  candy  manufacturing  com- 
pany, 1,000  employees,  "Fair  and  just."  Automobile-body  manu- 
facturers, 200  employees,  "Believe  it  fco  be  fair  to  all  concerned." 
Other  returns  give  a  business  reason  for  acceptance  in  a  word  or  a 
brief  phrase:  "Policy,"  "To  try  it,"  "Worthy  of  trial,"  "To  get 
definite  liability."  Approval  of  the  act  is  expressed  in  vet  other 
returns:  A  department  store,  800  employees,  "Thought  it  a  good 
thing";  a  knitting  company  with  550  employees,  "Good  act";  a  firm 
manufacturing  automobile  parts  and  gray  iron  and  having  a  brass 
foundry,  3,500  employees,  "Considered  it  beneficial  to  employees"; 
a  furnace  company,  160  employees,  "We  think  it  a  good  act  and  saves 
litigation";  an  air-rifle  company,  100  employees,  "A  stated  amount 
is  fixed  for  specific  injuries.  Possibility  of  lawsuits  avoided";  a  com- 
pany manufacturing  optical  goods,  140  employees,  "  It  fixes  the  cost 
of  accidents  of  all  kinds  to  employees,  does  away  with  litigation, 
pleases  employee  and  employer." 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — In  Michigan,  employers  have  so 
generally  accepted  the  act  that  we  received  little  information  as  to 
rejections,  although  a  furniture  manufacturing  company,  with  150 
e  mployees,  replied  that  he  had  rejected  the  act  upon  "  advice  received 
from  our  attorney";  a  cigar  manufacturer,  with  500  employees, 
"  Owing  to  methods  and  nature  of  our  business,  the  risk  is  very- 
slight";  a  manufacturer  of  brushes,  12  employees,  "We  have  not 
considered  our  work  such  as  to  require  the  investment";  a  lumber 
company,  300  employees,  "Prefer  to  see  how  it  works  out  before 
accepting";  a  general  merchandise  and  logging  company,  20  em- 
ployees, wrote,  "Too  expensive;  have  decided  to  carry  our  own 
risk." 

NEVADA. 

Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — In  Nevada  the  acceptances  of  the 
act  arise  from  "protection  at  less  rate  than  any  other  insurance." 
But  in  each  case  of  acceptance  reported  the  number  of  employees 
is  small;  in  no  case  are  there  more  than  20. 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — The  rejections,  on  the  other  hand, 
come  in  part  from  firms  or  corporations  employing  wage  earners  by 
the  hundreds.  A  railway  company,  with  413  employees,  writes, 
"During  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1913,  we  paid  to  employees 
on  account  of  injuries  and  deaths,  $2,718.50.  If,  during  that  period, 
we  had  been  operating  with  the  compensation  act  in  force  we  would 
have  paid  into  the  State  insurance  fund  $7,987.05.  Our  interests 
therefore  are  in  settling  such  claims  direct."  A  department  store 
having  80  persons  on  the  pay  roll,  regarded  the  State  insurance  as 
"too  expensive."  A  firm  engaged  in  "agriculture  and  live  stock," 
with  75  employees,  says,  "We  believe  it  cheaper  to  reject."  Small 
employers — such  as  barbers,  bankers,  druggists,  hotel  keepers,  cigar 
dealers — held  these  occupations  as  "not  hazardous."  One  employer 
reports,  "Law  is  crude  and  needs  amending";  another,  "We  think 
the  rate  charged  too  high  for  risk  involved,  as  the  act  covers  injury 
only";  another,  "Already  too  much  red  tape  connected  with  the 
business." 


174  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 


NEW   HAMPSHIRE. 


Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — From  New  Hampshire  the  returns 
do  not  indicate  a  widespread  discussion  of  the  law.  Among  the 
acceptances  the  principal  desire  expressed  is  encouragement  of 
justice.  A  printing  plant  with  20  employees,  "  wanted  to  recognize 
progressive  legislation."  A  firm  manufacturing  granite  memorials, 

To  comply  with  what  we  consider  a  fair  law."  A  dressing  mill  and 
shook  factory  proprietor,  "I  believe  the  act  a  good  thing  and  the 
liability  companies  the  worst  kind  of  a  monopoly." 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — One  employer,  whose  shoe  manu- 
factory has  1,100  employees,  states  as  his  reason  for  not  accepting 
the  law,  "The  objection  that  we  find  is  in  the  section  that  gives  the 
employee  the  privilege  to  elect  after  the  accident  whether  he  will 
accept  compensation  or  pursue  the  common -law  rights.  The  other 
sections  of  the  law  seem  to  be  entirely  fair  and  it  would  seem  to  us 
that  in  case  both  the  employer  and  employee  could  agree  to  operate 
under  the  law,  neither  having  the  privilege  of  making  a  change  after 
an  accident,  that  it  would  be  preferable  to  the  common  law."  A 
cotton-goods  mill  company  reports,  "  Partly  inaction  and  partly 
because  it  is  a  one-sided  contract."  A  company  manufacturing 
woolens,  lt  Principally  that  we  considered  the  law  was  not  what  it 
should  be,  and  until  a  new  law  was  made  we  should  be  governed  by 
the  provisions  of  our  insurance  policies."  A  paper  manufacturing 
company,  "  Because  of  legal  advice — advise  from  liability  insurance 
people,  and  our  reading  and  understanding  of  the  law  as  placed  upon 
the  statute.  We  believe  in  compensation  for  sickness  and  unavoidable 
accidents;  we  do  not  believe  an  employer  should  be  responsible  for 
accidents  due  to  drink  or  carelessness  or  sickness  caused  by  these 
things.  We  consider  the  law  a  very  one-sided  arrangement."  A 
company  manufacturing  cutlery  and  hardware  specialties,  "We 
believe  a  more  reasonable  and  just  settlement  can  be  made  under  the 
common  law."  A  company  manufacturing  worsted  yarns  and  tops, 
"  There  is  no  advantage  in  our  paying  any  very  great  amount  for 
accident  insurance,  especially  since  we  would  have  to  pay  a  high  rate 
to  average  up  with  those  industries  where  the  accidents  are  much 
more  frequent  and  serious."  Granite  works,  "The  employee  does  not 
accept  nor  does  he  have  to.  By  accepting  the  law,  liability  insurance 
rates  are  increased  and  we  can  not  see  where  the  advantage  is  to  the 
employer."  A  wood  manufacturing  firm,  "We  have  an  employers' 
liability  insurance  and  know  just  what  we  have  to  pay  for  each 


year." 


NEW   JERSEY. 


In  New  Jersey,  where,  under  the  statute,  the  employer  comes  under 
the  compensation  provisions  of  the  act  unless  he  serves  notice  that  he 
rejects  the  same,  the  majority  of  employers  neglected  to  state  their 
reason  for  accepting  the  act,  while  a  great  many  others  gave  as  their 
reason  the  compulsory  nature  of  the  act;  other  employers  stated  that 
they  did  so  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  litigation  and  having  amount 
of  their  liability  definitely  known. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  answers  of  some  of  the  employers  showed 
that  their  acceptance  was  based  upon  the  ground  that  they  believed 


ACCEPTANCES   AND   KEJECTIONS.  175 

the  compensation  act  to  be  fair  to  both  employer  and  employee.  As 
one  employer,  with  a  pay  roll  of  $300,000  per  annum,  stated,  "We 
believe  that  the  principle  of  workmen's  compensation  is  sound  and 
that  the  plan  is  equitable  and  just.  The  elimination  of  the  fellow- 
servant  risk  alone  was  a  needed  and  necessary  reform." 

One  large  employer,  with  a  pay  roll  of  $3,000,000  annually,  has 
rejected  the  act  for  the  reason  that  he  prefers  to  carry  on  his  own 
scheme  of  compensation,  while  a  small  employer  employing  three 
persons  rejected  the  act  for  the  reason  that  he  thought  it  ought  not 
to  apply  to  small  employers. 

Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — Commendation  of  the  act  is 
expressed  by  lar^e  firms,  as  follows:  Manufacturers  of  cotton  spe- 
cialties, 950  employees,  "  We  though  it  fair  to  both  employer  and 
employee."  Iron  works,  machinists,  and  founders,  1,000  employees, 
" Because  we  belie\e  in  it."  Pottery  manufacturers,  500  employees, 
"It  is  our  desire  to  comply  with  and  even  go  further  than  the  State 
law  in  order  to  help  our  employees. "  A  company  manufacturing  elec- 
trical apparatus,  460  employees,  "We  believe  compensation  act  to  be 
fair  for  both  employee  and  employer."  A  brewing  corporation,  360 
employees,  "We  believe  that  the  principle  of  workmen's  compensa- 
tion is  sound  and  that  the  plan  is  equitable  and  just.  The  elimina- 
tion of  the  fellow-servant  risk  alone  was  a  needed  and  necessary 
reform."  Iron  foundry,  140  employees,  "Believe  it  is  fair  and  equi- 
table and  practicable."  Manufacturers  of  coal-tar  products,  198  em- 
ployees, "Seems  fair  to  us."  Some  employers  regarded  the  act  as 
compulsory  in  their  case :  A  ladies'  wear  manufacturer,  150  employees, 
says,  "Accepted,  because  we  have  to."  Glass  manufacturing  com- 
pany, 1,100  employees,  "Because  it  is  the  law  of  the  State."  Brick 
manufacturer,  50  employees,  "All  defenses  taken  away  by  the  new 
law."  Other  returns  give  business  reasons  only:  "We  have  not 
rejected  it,  which  automatically  means  acceptance,"  a  firm  of  con- 
tractors and  dealers  in  coal  and  building  materials,  50  employees. 
'To  avoid  litigation,"  cotton  work,  etc.,  150  employees.  "We  had, 
hoped  it  would  do  away  with  law  suits,"  fine  chemicals,  275  employ- 
ees. "To  limit  liability,"  electric  contractors,  20  employees. 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — In  the  few  reports  of  rejecting  the 
act  in  New  Jersey,  no  reasons  for  the  step  are  given. 

OHIO. 

Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — The  Ohio  act  becoming  compulsory 
January  1,  1914,  this  fact  is  given  as  the  main  reason  for  already  com- 
ing under  the  law  in  the  case  of  about  10  per  cent  of  the  employers 
reporting.  Of  those  who  accepted  the  act  at  an  early  date  after  its 
passage,  many  say  their  desire  was  to  be  just,  to  promote  peace  with 
their  employees,  and  to  have  claims  against  them  settled  promptly. 
In  other  cases  economy  is  mentioned  as  the  leading  reason,  fortified, 
however,  by  other  motives.  The  short  time  during  which  the  Ohio 
law  has  been  in  operation  is  frequently  brought  to  the  investigators' 
attention.  The  following  replies  are  typical  as  showing  the  attitude 
of  employers  toward  the  act  while  it  was  yet  optional :  A  manufacturing 
company,  60  employees,  "We  wished  to  give  our  men  the  protection." 
Company  drilling  deep  wells  for  oil  and  gas,  60  employees,  "We  think 
it  is  a  needed  reform,  a  step  toward  a  better  understanding  between 


176  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

employer  and  employee."  Company  manufacturing  face  brick, 
100  employees,  "  Cheaper  than  employers'  liability  insurance  and 
more  just  to  employees."  Coal  company,  retailers  of  coal  and  build- 
ers' supplies  except  lumber,  9  employees,  "  Accepted  because  we  feel 
that  it  relieves  us  of  danger  of  suit  in  case  of  accident,  which  is 
likely  to  put  a  small  firm  to  the  bad.  It  gives  the  employees  an  arbi- 
trator to  see  that  they  receive  just  compensation."  Manufacturers 
of  soap  and  laundry  supplies,  "  We  favor  that  part  of  the  act  that  pro- 
tects the  employee  by  paying  a  specified  amount,  without  court  costs 
and  attorney  fees."  Company  manufacturing  dashes  and  fenders  for 
vehicles,  100  employees,  "  We  believe  it  to  be  a  just  law  both  for  the 
employer  and  employee."  Bedding  company,  manufacturers  of  mat- 
tresses, 46  employees,  " First,  from  a  humanitarian  standpoint;  sec- 
ond, because  the  indemnity  insurance  put  this  company  in  the  posi- 
tion of  antagonism  to  the  just  claims  of  its  employees  for  injuries 
sustained,  whereas  under  the  State  act  we  can  work  hand  in  hand  with 
our  injured  employee  to  see  that  he  gets  a  just  compensation,  while 
at  the  same  time  self-interest  makes  us  see  that  no  unjust  awards  are 
paid."  Furniture  company,  manufacturers,  60  employees,  "  Looked 
very  good  and  is  good.  Company  mining  coal  and  manufacturing 
coke,  200  employees,  "  Thought  it  best  for  employees,  also  our  com- 
pany." Canners  of  fruits  and  vegetables,  100  to  600  employees, 
Justice  to  employees  and  protection  to  employer."  Coal-mining 
company,  150  employees,  "State  rate  is  only  18  cents  per  $100  higher 
than  liability  insurance,  and  employees  receive  benefit  in  case  of 
accident  or  death  without  legal  proceedings;  also  State  law  is  com- 
pulsory after  December  31,  1913."  Private  hospital  for  the  sick,  100 
employees,  "Believe  it  to  be  a  good  thing."  Motor  company, 

gasoline  motors  for  automobiles  and  trucks,  60  employees,  "We  be- 
eved  it  to  be  fair  both  to  employees  and  employers."  Rolling-mill 
company,  rolling  iron  and  steel  bars,  600  employees,  "Principally  on 
account  of  the  compensation  feature,  as  we  considered  that  one  of  the 
new  conditions  which  must  be  met  by  all  employers.  Also  on  account 
of  the  complete  protection  as  compared  with  the  limited  protection 
of  the  ordinary  insurance  policy."  Roofing  and  asbestos  materials, 
400  employees,  "We  believed  the  workman  would  get  what  he  was 
entitled  to  without  the  expensive  legal  cost  and  that  he  would  be  bet- 
ter satisfied  by  the  State's  decision."  Clay-products  company,  manu- 
facturing paving  block  and  building  block,  43  employees,  "More 
economical,  and  the  employees  will  receive  the  benefit  instead  of 
insurance  companies'  lawyers."  Printing  works  company,  70  em- 
ployees, "We  thought  it  would  be  an  improvement  over  the  regular 
liability  companies,  and  it  has  proven  so."  Shoe-machinery  con- 
cern, 20  employees,  "Accepted  because  under  the  Ohio  law  we  felt 
that  all  moneys  paid  in  went  toward  paying  the  injured  'employee 
instead  of  lawyers  or  investors  in  insurance  companies."  Art  works, 
500  employees,  "We  regard  it  the  best  protection  for  the  least  cost 
we  ever  had.  It  is  a  good  thing  for  the  employee  and  the  employer." 
Shoe  company,  1,750  employees,  "We  believe  our  law  equitable  to 
both  employer  and  employed." 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — Refusal  to  accept  the  act  in  Ohio  has 
usually  been  based  on  the  high  rates  to  be  borne,  especially  by  large 
employers  in  occupations  not  deemed  by  them  hazardous.  While 


ACCEPTANCES   AND   REJECTIONS.  177 

the  law  soon  becomes  compulsory,  the  following  replies  are  given  as 
testimony  bearing  on  the  general  discussion  of  the  question:  Hy- 
draulic machinery,  gas,  and  gasoline  engines  company,  125  employees: 
"  We  are  entirely  satisfied  with  our  present  arrangement  for  liability 
insurance,  and  it  is  such  that  we  need  not  be  concerned  with  it,  as 
regards  settlement  with  injured;  too  expensive  and  caused  men  to 
lay  off  for  two  or  three  weeks  when  they  were  not  hurt  very  much; 
mash  a  toe  or  finger  and  get  two-thirds  pay  from  State  while  disabled. 
Lots  of  them  would  never  have  quit  work  if  the  State  did  not  pay 
them.  I  think  the  settlements  were  satisfactory  to  the  men,  as  they 
could  get  along  very  well  on  two-thirds  pay.  We  found  it  encouraged 
men  to  get  hurt  and  they  were  not  hurt  nearly  as  badly  as  they  let 
on  to  be."  Company  manufacturing  soap,  candles,  glycerine,  etc., 
90  employees:  "Were  carrying  liability  insurance;  did  not  change 
as  State  premium  rate  was  higher."  Manufacturers  of  stoves  and 
ranges,  650  employees:  "We  shall  have  until  the  end  of  the  year  to 
decide."  Company  manufacturing  vehicles  as  assembled,  50  em- 
ployees: "Rate  is  too  high,  making  total  cost  entirely  too  much." 
Tool  company,  manufacture  of  oil,  gas,  and  artesian  well  tools, 
machinery  and  supplies  for  same,  95  employees:  "Rates  so  much 
higher  than  regular  insurance  companies  are  charging."  Company 
manufacturing  sectional  bookcases,  filing  cabinets,  etc.,  1,400  em- 
ployees: "Rate  too  high;  have  decided  to  take  chances  of  non- 
compliance."  Steel  company,  rolling  steel  plates  and  sheets,  200 
employees:  "Rate  too  high;  also  entails  a  great  amount  of  detailed 
clerical  work  usually  taken  care  of  by  insurance  company."  A  com- 
pany with  450  employees:  "Payments  by  our  company  and  prede- 
cessors in  30  years  on  account  of  accidents  have  not  aggregated 
$5,000.  Under  present  law  premium  would  have  aggregated 
$60,000." 

RHODE   ISLAND. 

Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — In  Rhode  Island  the  reason  given 
usually  is  that  the  "provisions  of  the  act  made  it  practically  compul- 
sory." In  one  case,  "Insurance  company  told  us  to  accept  it." 
Economy  and  freeing  the  employer  from  uncertainties  in  outlay  were 
shown  in  such  replies  as:  "To  avoid  risk  and  litigation" ;  "Could  get 
a  better  insurance  rate  by  accepting  than  by  rejecting  it";  "It  fur- 
nished legal  means  to  stop  disputes  and  suits  and  settle  cases  of  acci- 
dents"; "Elimination  of  the  'shyster  lawyer'  and  a  large  liability 
judgment  having  to  be  paid  in  a  lump  sum,  which  might  seriously 
cripple  a  small  concern."  Another  set  of  reasons  runs :  "Believe  that 
under  the  law  the  employee  will  receive  more  and  the  employer  pay 
less  than  in  the  past,"  manufacturer  of  machine  tools,  100  employees; 
"Better  than  common  law  liability  for  us  and  for  help";  "Our  own 
protection  and  benefit  of  our  employees,"  founders  and  machinists, 
250  employees;  "Thought  it  advantageous  and  saving  trouble  and 
litigation,"  department  store,  820  employees.  One  reply  is:  "For 
its  definiteness;  money  paid  goes  to  the  injured  party;  not  shared 
by  others,"  cotton  manufactory,  625  employees. 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — The  act  was  not  accepted  by  some 
employers  simply  through  their  negligence,  according  to  their  reports. 
One,  mentioning  the  amount  that  accidents  have  cost  him  this  year 

30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2 12 


178  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

declares  his  intention  to  come  in  under  the  act.  A  small  employer 
writes:  " Never  considered  the  act;  working  right  in  with  help  and 
looking  for  safety  of  all  as  far  as  possible;  only  one  slight  accident 
in  five  years."  No  deep  discussion  of  its  terms  comes  from  any  of 
those  who  have  rejected  the  Rhode  Island  law.  One  man  says: 
"Altogether  too  one-sided;  an  employee  can  scratch  his  skin  and  get 
damages." 

WISCONSIN. 

Reasons  for  accepting  the  act. — Of  the  Wisconsin  employers  report- 
ing that  they  have  accepted  the  act,  the  largest  proportion  assign  as 
their  reason  for  doing  so  "the  taking  away  of  all  our  defenses,"  or 
" Forced  to  accept  compensation  by  latest  revision  of  the  act,"  or 
"Had  to  come  under  the  law  by  September  1,  1913,  or  elect  to  stay 
out,"  or  in  other  words  expressing  the  one  idea  that  "it  would  be 
safer  under  the  law  than  to  be  outside."  However,  other  reasons 
given  signify  faith  in  the  law,  a  desire  to  give  it  a  fair  trial,  or  a  hope 
that  under  its  operation  there  might,  and  probably  would,  be  a 
decrease  of  friction  with  employees,  of  costs  through  engaging 
counsel,  and  of  the  annoyances  through  protracted  litigation  arid 
postponed  settlements.  A  considerable  number  of  the  replies  speak 
of  humanitarian  motives  as  actuating  acceptance.  A  company 
having  200  employees  writes:  "Believe  in  it  strongly  as  fairer  to  the 
men."  Another  company,  with  310  employees,  writes,  "We  want 
the  men  to  get  what  is  due  them  instead  of  insurance  companies  and 
lawyers."  An  employer  with  30  persons  on  his  pay  roll  says,  "Be- 
cause we  believe  that  the  employee  should  receive  compensation  for 
injury  according  to  a  fixed  schedule,  regardless  of  fault."  A  com- 
pany manufacturing  automobile  frames  and  parts,  700  employees  in 
summer  and  1,300  in  winter,  says,  "We  felt  it  ought  to  be  fairer  to 
the  workmen  than  the  common  law."  A  concern  with  50  to  75 
employees  reports,  "To  avoid  spending  money  for  litigation  that 
should  belong  to  the  insured."  A  box  manufacturing  company  with 
20  employees  writes,  "Our  reason  for  accepting  State  compensation 
is  that  it  will  benefit  the  employee  as  well  as  the  employer,  inasmuch 
as  it  will  eliminate  lawyers'  fees  on  both  sides  and  injured  employee 
will  receive  full  amount  of  compensation  awarded  him  by  commission." 
A  manufacturer  of  box  snooks,  crating  and  wire  reels,  75  employees, 
"Wanted  the  State  to  protect  us  and  in  our  opinion  the  liability  was 
less."  A  company  manufacturing  tires  and  rubber  goods,  1,000  to 
1,300  employees,  "Practically  compulsory."  Other  replies  run: 
"Does  away  with  lawsuits;"  "Best  for  all^  concerned;"  "The  best 
way  out  of  difficulties  caused  by  unjust  claims;"  "Just  and  certain 
compensation,  quick  relief,  and  no  lawyers'  bills."  One  reply  was, 
"To  try  it;"  another,  "Cheaper  in  our  opinion;"  a  third,  "We 
believe  in  it." 

Reasons  for  rejecting  the  act. — The  majority  rejecting  the  act  say 
there  is  little  or  no  probability  of  accidents  in  their  respective  occu- 
pations. So  report  a  cigar  manufacturer,  a  firm  of  practicing  attor- 
neys, a  maker  of  sheet-metal  work  and  hardware,  a  real  estate  dealer, 
a  nrm  carrying  on  a  general  store,  a  retail  druggist,  and  several  dry 
goods  houses.  The  other  principal  cause  of  rejection  is  the  high  cost. 
A  firm  making  canoes,  rowboats,  etc.,  says  under  this  heading,  "The 
insurance  rate  for  us  would  be  $2.45.  All  our  employees,  except  two 


ACCEPTANCES   AND   REJECTIONS.  179 

men,  do  light  hand  work  where  there  is  very  little  danger  of  getting 
hurt.  In  all  our  experience,  covering  a  period  of  over  26  years,  we 
have  not  known  of  anyone  getting  hurt  beyond  a  mere  scratch  in  this 
department.  But  we  would  be  required  to  carry  insurance  on  our 
entire  pay  roll.7'  A  company  manufacturing  turned  wooden- ware 
and  tight  cooperage  writes,  "Our  reasons  for  rejecting  it  are  many. 
First  we  are  not  in  sympathy  with  the  law  because  it  takes  away  the 
right  of  jury  trial  entirely,  wnich  is  guaranteed  to  us  under  the  Consti- 
tution. It  takes  away  our  defense,  whether  we  accept  or  reject  the 
law.  It  places  our  business  under  the  jurisdiction  and  dominion  of  a 
political  commission,  who  have  the  right  if  we  go  under  the  law  to 
make  an  examination  of  our  business  at  any  time.  It  is  paternal 
and  socialistic.  Since  the  introduction  of  the  law  it  has  increased 
the  number  of  accidents  in  our  factory  by  over  100  per  cent.  If  a 
man  can  cut  a  finger  and  lay  off  for  two  or  three  weeks,  draw  his 
wages,  have  a  doctor's  and  hospital  bill  paid,  with  all  medicine,  he 
would  rather  do  it  than  work.  As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  the 
compensation  act  of  Wisconsin  has  damaged  our  business  more  than 
we  can  estimate." 


NO.  7.  SUGGESTIONS  BY  EMPLOYERS  FOB  AMENDMENT  OF  LAWS. 

"Do  you  suggest  any  changes  in  your  compensation  law?"  This 
question  brought  more  replies  than  any  other  in  the  list  sent  by  the 
commission  to  employers  in  the  States  having  compensation  acts. 
The  answers  from  each  State  fell  naturally  into  classification,  each 
bearing  on  some  provision  or  lack  of  provision  in  the  particular  law. 
In  making  up  the  following  chapter,  replies  typical  of  those  from 
every  one  of  the  classes  have  been  selected,  repetition  being  avoided 
to  the  extent  possible.  Every  distinct  suggestion,  it  is  believed, 
has  a  place  here.  While  the  impressions  of  the  small  employers 
have  been  given  considerable  attention  in  this  symposium,  it  is  to  be 
kept  in  mind  that  the  large  employers  usually  have  a  proportion- 
ately greater  experience  in  dealing  with  payment  for  accidents,  and 
therefore  their  views  of  the  laws  are  perhaps  less  liable  to  be  in- 
fluenced by  unlikely  probabilities.  The  wide  range  of  suggestions 
in  certain  of  the  States  is  evidence  not  only  of  the  lively  interest  in 
the  problem  of  compensation,  but  more  especially  of  the  stage  of 
education  with  regard  to  the  subject  attained  oy  employers  in  general. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  criticism  of  the  law  as  it  stands  in  each 
State  investigated,  the  suggestions  afford  a  summary  of  the  attitude 
of  the  employers  of  the  State  toward  the  whole  question  of  compen- 
sation. On  the  whole,  the  expressions  of  the  authors  of  the  replies 
constitute  a  verdict  favorable  to  the  policy,  yet  new,  as  it  is,  to  the 
United  States.  The  information  here  given  the  public  is  trust- 
worthy. It  is  first  hand.  It  is  not  drawn  from  the  domain  of  con- 
jecture. It  stands  for  dollars  and  cents  expended  and  to  be  ex- 
pended. It  is  given  in  earnest;  not  one  of  the  responses  here  re- 
corded but  was  set  down  on  reflection  and  with  the  purpose  of  im- 
parting fact  to  the  minds  of  other  men  engaged  in  the  same  complex 
social  task  which,  in  its  financial  phase,  is  at  once  personal  and  public. 
If  a  few  of  the  opinions  permit  the  inference  of  hasty  formation  or 
exaggerated  expression,  the  writers  can  not  complain  of  being  ignored 
in  the  investigations  and  readers  are  given  the  opportunity  of  weigh- 
ing the  propositions  coming  from  all  sides  and  from  every  set  of 
proponents.  It  being  the  aim  of  the  commission  to  embody  in  its 
report  if  not  all,  at  least  all  the  salient  points,  of  view  brought  forth 
in  this  nation-wide  discussion,  the  suggestions  have  been  adjudged 
worth  while  the  space  accorded  them  in  these  pages. 

CALIFORNIA. 

The  California  reports  divide  themselves,  with  regard  to  suggestions 
for  changes,  into  three  classes.  The  majority  omit  replying;  half  the 
others  plead  inexperience  with  the  law  or  refer  to  its  brief  existence 
as  good  reason  for  not  suggesting  amendments.  The  remainder  give 
a  variety  of  opinions  as  to  improvement,  the  following  being  examples : 
Acetylene,  oxygen  welding,  cutting  and  equipment  company,  12 
employees:  "It  is  our  belief,  based  on  experience,  that  rates  are  not 

180 


SUGGESTIONS  BY   EMPLOYEES.  181 

always  fair.  Improvements  in  equipment  and  incidental  safety  made 
possible  thereby  should  be  taken  into  consideration.  This  applies 
particularly  to  newer  lines  of  industry."  Manufacturers  of  electric 
heating  appliances,  450  employees:  "Law  coming  into  force  January  1, 
1914,  carries  provision  for  State  insurance.  We  are  not  sure  tnat 
this  is  wise,  as  we  think  insurance  and  politics  not  liable  to  make 
good  mixture.  We  believe  in  compensation."  Construction  com- 
pany, 250  employees:  "We  think  the  law  should  be  so  that  all 
employers  must  accept  the  State  act  and  that  the  State  should 
insure."  Interurban  railway  company,  operating  standard-gauge 
railroad,  30  employees:  "Settlement  on  basis  of  provisions  should  be 
made  compulsory  on  part  of  employer  and  employee  alike,  to  eliminate 
employee  bringing  suits."  Realty  company,  12  employees:  l 'Fre- 
quent warnings  to  property  owners  and  employers  through  the  news- 
papers that  it  is  their  duty  to  themselves,  to  employees,  and  the 
public  to  provide  every  safeguard  against  accident.  If  accidents 
occur  for  reason  of  sidewalk,  elevator,  or  trapdoors  remaining  open, 
a  State  law  should  regulate  the  use  of  same."  Wholesale  grocery, 
6  employees:  "Repeal.  Injurious  to  business."  Planing  mill  com- 
pany, 15  employees:  "If  the  State  undertakes  to  insure  employees, 
it  should  make  an  absolute  guarantee  with  a  fair  tax  to  owners." 
Mining  company,  450  employees:  "The  act  has  been  satisfactory 
to  us  under  present  administration.  Our  criticism  is  that  an  almost 
unlimited  power  is  invested  in  a  few  men  appointed  by  the  governor." 
Drugs,  3  employees:  "State  insurance  and  law  applying  to  all  em- 
ployers." Department  store,  500  employees:  "The  only  possible 
flaw  in  the  compensation  act  of  California  is  the  unlimited  liability 
for  medical  attendance.  While  liability  for  injury  itself  is  limited  to 
three  years'  earnings,  and  in  no  event  to  exceed  $5,000,  liability 
for  medical  attendance  is  not  defined,  which  may  cause  difficulty. 
Physicians  knowingly  may  take  advantage  of  this  and  render  exces- 
sive bills.  The  act  takes  effect  on  January  1,  1914,  and  the  difficul- 
ties are  not  suppositions,  though  not  unlikely  to  be  borne  out  by 
practice." 

ILLINOIS. 

The  majority  of  the  reports  from  Illinois  contain  no  suggestions 
for  changes  in  the  compensation  law  of  the  State.  This  may  be 
interpreted  either  as  satisfaction  with  the  act  or  (the  reason  given  in 
several  cases)  as  reluctance  to  seek  amendment  before  the  new  sys- 
tem has  had  a  fair  trial.  Following  are  replies  to  this  question,  given 
as  indicative  of  the  variety  of  views  held  on  the  law:  Manufacturers 
of  special  machinery,  100  employees,  "We  suggest  that  a  law  be 
passed  same  as  in  England,  compelling  physicians  to  give  their  serv- 
ices for  personal-injury  cases  at  a  rate  fixed  by  the  State."  Manu- 
facturers of  small  electric  motors,  60  employees,  "In  our  opinion  the 
law  gives  too  much  protection  to  the  careless,  shiftless  employee  and 
enables  him  to  take  advantage  of  the  employer."  Manufacturers  of 
parlor  frames,  125  employees,  "In  case  arbitration  is  necessary, 
injured  person  should  be  taken  care  of  in  the  interim."  A  company 
manufacturing  hardware  and  woodenware  specialties,  50  employees, 
"Make  it  compulsory  and  have  it  taken  over  by  State."  Fabricators 
and  erectors  of  structural  steel  and  bridges,  175  employees,  "Should 
be  made  compulsory  on  both  employees  and  employers  and  cover 


182  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

every  kind  of  labor.  The  compensation  should  be  so  plain  that  there 
could  be  no  question  regarding  amount.  Laws  should  be  uniform 
in  all  States."  A  carriage-body  company,  140  employees,  "  Would 
suggest  that  employer  be  relieved  from  payment  when  it  is  shown 
that  employee  suffered  injury  or  accident  wholly  through  his  or  her 
own  carelessness."  A  company  manufacturing  farm  machinery,  275 
employees,  "  Employees  should  be  made  to  pay  a  proportion  of  their 
wages  for  this  protection.  Permanent  disability  clause  too  much  in 
favor  of  injured.  Too  much  in  favor  of  employee  all  the  way 
through."  A  steel  foundry,  2,500  employees,  "Late  amendments  to 
Illinois  laws  made  schedule  of  settlements  in  various  permanent, 
injury  cases,  which  was  a  good  improvement,  for  obvious  reasons." 
A  lumber  company,  160  employees,  "Our  observation,  based  on  one 
case  in  our  own  experience,  is  that  there  should  be  some  way  of  en- 
forcing a  settlement,  either  with  or  without  a  board  of  arbitration, 
so  that  an  award  would  be  final  and  not  left  to  the  option  of  either 
party."  A  company  manufacturing  pumps,  125  to  150  employees, 
"The  only  suggestion  we  have  to  make  is  that  all  manufacturers 
should  be  obliged  by  the  Government  to  join  into  a  cooperative 
society  according  to  the  various  hazards.  We,  for  example,  have 
paid  to  insurance  companies  during  the  past  two  years  over  $2,000, 
and  our  employees  during  the  past  two  years  have  received  but  $70 
of  that  amount."  Manufacturers  of  barrels,  60  to  100  employees, 
"Think  rate  much  too  high."  A  job-printing  company,  125  em- 
ployees, "Compensation  law  should  have  universal  application. 
Excepting  the  farmer  from  its  provision  makes  the  law  class  legisla- 
tion and  unconstitutional,  in  our  opinion."  Furniture  works,  90 
employees,  "The  employee  should  be  held  responsible  for  negligence." 
A  piano  company,  manufacturers,  200  employees,  "If  employer  pro- 
vides safeguards  and  employee  rejects  them,  he  should  be  deprived 
of  all  benefits  in  case  of  accident,  because  most  employees  refuse  to 
work  on  machines  without  removing  guards."  A  light  and  power 
company,  "Where  an  employer  insures  his  pay  roll  in  an  insurance 
company  acceptable  to  the  insurance  department  of  the  State,  he 
should  be  released  from  further  responsibility  regarding  accidents. 
Minnesota  law  just  going  into  effect  includes  this  release."  A  coal- 
mining company,  1,100  employees,  "Believe  law  should  be  com- 
pulsory  and  think  State,  employer,  and  employee  should  contribute." 
Implement  manufacturers,  2,000  employees,  "Some  of  the  most 
necessary  changes  were  made  in  the  new  law  when  it  became  oper- 
ative, July  1,  1913.  Compensation  should  be  made  as  definite  as 
possible  for  the  various  permanent  injuries  to  avoid  disagreements. 
Where  such  do  occur,  arbitration  method  should  be  simple  and 
rapid,  to  avoid  necessity  for  attorneys.  Cash  settlement  for  the 
lesser  permanent  injuries  (loss  of  eye  or  one  or  two  fingers)  is  best, 
as  in  most  cases  the  employee  returns  to  work  at  same  wages  and 
profits  more  by  having  the  lump  sum.  There  are  exceptions,  how- 
ever." A  company  manufacturing  lithographed  tin  boxes  and  cans 
and  metal  specialties,  100  employees,  "The  Illinois  law  should  be 
made  more  specific."  Wire  and  iron  works,  115  employees,  "Think 
a  State  should  provide  the  insurance  in  an  efficient  way  or  make  some 
arrangement  to  avoid  the  profit  and  expense  of  insurance  companies 
in  writing  the  business  and  taking  care  of  it,  so  as  to  secure  a  square 
deal  for  employee  at  least  possible  cost  to  employer."  Sheet-metal 


SUGGESTIONS   BY  EMPLOYEES.  183 

works,  25  employees,  "We  believe  the  employees,  the  employer,  and 
the  State  should  join  in  fund  under  State  administration.  This 
would  insure.  The  present  method  lacks  permanency  and  certainty. 
Germany  has  the  correct  idea.  As  we  understand  it,  the  idea  behind 
compensation  laws  is  threefold:  First,  to  relieve  the  State  of  the  care 
of  the  dependent  population  which  results  from  industrial  accidents; 
second,  to  relieve  those  who  are  injured  and  their  dependents,  as  far 
as  possible,  in  a  financial  way  from  the  results  of  these  accidents; 
third,  to  load  upon  the  employing  class  a  definite  known  change, 
instead  of  an  indefinite  possible  charge  as  it  has  been  in  the  past. 
Purely  as  a  matter  of  justice,  any  person  or  any  class  of  persons  who 
are  benefited  should  contribute."  Machine  shop,  120  employees, 
"Consider  same  unconstitutional,  as  it  takes  away  from  the  employer 
all  right  of  defense  allowed  originally  by  Constitution  of  United 
States." 

KANSAS. 

A  feature  of  the  reports  from  Kansas  is  the  number  of  suggestions 
to  change  the  period  of  beginning  compensation  from  two  weeks 
to  one.  For  example:  Soda-ash  manufacturers,  150  employees:  "No 
provision  for  loss  of  time  or  medical  service  for  accidents  resulting 
in  less  than  two  weeks'  incapacity  is  a  hardship  on  the  workman. 
Half  tune  and  half  the  physician's  bill  would  be  a  reasonable  compe- 
tence during  such  incapacity.  In  some  cases,  due  to  circumstances, 
we  have  allowed  full  doctor's  bill."  Other  suggestions  and  com- 
ments under  this  heading  are  as  follows:  General  job  printing,  8  em- 
ployees: "Our  law  is  wrong  in  principle,  as  it  assesses  damages  against 
the  employer  in  favor  of  the  employee;  in  instances  where  the  em- 
ployer has  not  wronged  the  employee,  'compensation'  is  a  mis- 
nomer." General  contractor,  50  employees:  "The  law  is  all  right  for 
concerns  of  large  capital  who  can  afford  to  pay  the  loss,  while  a  man 
of  smaller  means  might  be  seriously  crippled,  and  his  only  safety  is 
to  carry  insurance  at  an  expensive  premium."  Brick  and  tile  com- 
pany, 300  employees:  "Rate  of  loss  to  the  employee  has  been  the  first 
two  weeks  immediately  following  his  accident,  including,  of  course, 
his  first-aid  and  hospital  fees.  For  this  reason  we  are  recommending 
the  early  adoption  of  a  compensation  act  that  will  compel  reasonable 
compensation  for  the  time  lost  by  the  employee  and  give  full  surgical 
aid  and  hospital  fees.  In  other  words,  insure  the  employee  for  the 
two  weeks  not  now  covered  by  the  compensation  act,  and  give  to 
him  in  addition  his  doctor  fees  and  hospital  fees,  which  are  the  dread 
of  his  life."  Meat  packing,  ice  making,  and  cold  storage,  60  employees: 
"We  think  compensation  should  be  contributed  to  by  State,  employer, 
and  employee,  and  the  fund  administered  by  representative  from 
each  of  the  three,  to  be  just  and  equitable  and  to  save  unnecessary 
waste,  so  the  injured  would  obtain  as  near  100  per  cent  as  possible." 
Desiccating  eggs  and  freezing  eggs,  30  employees:  "Should  be  national. 
Reason:  Employers  in  States  without  compensation  laws  have  ad- 
vantage in  competing  for  interstate  business."  Buff  brick  and  manu- 
facturing company,  175  employees:  "Should  apply  to  farmers."  Oil- 
refining  company,  45  employees:  "Since  the  compensation  law  re- 
moves most  of  the  defenses  heretofore  available  in  case  of  accident, 
on  the  theory  that  the  employee's  family  should  not  suffer  in  case  of 


184  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

accident,  and  as  corporations  are  made  liable  whether  negligent  or 
not,  it  would  appear  that  the  whole  matter  rests  upon  the  theory  that 
it  is  protection  to  society  in  general,  and  in  that  case  society  in  gen- 
eral should  be  made  to  bear  the  burden  except  where  the  corporation 
is  shown  to  be  clearly  negligent  and  at  fault.  There  is  a  possibility 
that  a  corporation  might  be  made  bankrupt  by  an  accident  for  which 
it  was  not  responsible  and  which  could  not  by  any  foresight  be  pre- 
vented, and  which  occurred  through  neglect  of  rules  and  use  of  safety 
devices  by  an  employee  after  all  possible  precautions  had  been  taken 
to  prevent  the  trouble.  This  points  to  State  insurance  as  a  solution 
of  the  problem — an  assuming  by  society  as  a  whole  of  the  burdens  of 
the  individual  where  the  burdens  are  unavoidable."  Coal-mining 
company,  100  employees:  "As  Kansas  State  law  now  is,  the  company 
can  elect  to  come  under  its  provisions;  also  laborers.  We  believe 
that  if  company  comes  under  law,  the  employees  of  such  company 
should  be  made  to  come  under  also.  We  also  believe  that  a  State 
board  of  adjustment,  whose  ruling  on  damage  cases  or  accidents 
would  be  final,  with  fixed  compensation  based  on  earnings  and  tune 
of  disability  as  a  basis  to  make  adjustments,  would  be  the  proper  way 
to  handle  same.  We  would  also  suggest  a  law  governing  contingent 
fees  for  lawyers,  whereby  only  a  reasonable  charge  could  be  made  by 
a  lawyer,  and  all  settlements  to  be  made  through  court,  who  would  be 
responsible  to  lawyer  for  his  fee.  In  line  with  this  we  might  add  that 
the  worst  evil  we  have  to  contend  with  is  the  unscrupulous  lawyer, 
who  not  only  preys  on  the  employer  but  extracts  an  exorbitant  fee 
from  the  injured,  thereby  robbing  the  injured  and  misdirecting  the 
intent  of  the  laws  of  compensation." 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

Massachusetts  reports,  while  in  general  indicating  a  sentiment 
in  favor  of  the  act  as  it  is,  in  some  cases  protest  against  payments 
in  case  of  the  employee's  negligence.  Many  of  the  reports  also  assert 
that  the  rates  are  too  high.  A  classification  of  industries  is  suggested. 
A  company  manufacturing  wholesale  and  retail  men's  clothing,  630 
employees,  "The  needle  trades  do  not  offer  much  hazard  to  workers, 
and,  in  view  of  the  risk,  our  premiums  are  much  too  high.  Each 
trade  should  be  classified,  Avith  a  rate  of  its  own."  The  subjoined 
suggestions  include  the  various  views  expressed:  A  mill  company, 
525  employees,  "The  only  change  suggested  in  the  compensation  act 
would  be  that  in  cases  of  death  the  dependents  of  the  deceased  work- 
men be  allowed  to  arrange  with  the  insurance  companies  for  a  lump 
sum  settlement,  rather  than  be  forced  to  wait  for  at  least  six  months, 
receiving  compensation  on  the  weekly  wage  schedule  during  this 
time."  A  cotton  cloth  manufacturing  company,  1,475  employees, 
"There  should  be  in  the  law  more  specialization  as  to  the  nature  of 
injuries  and  compensation  therefor.  .Instances:  A  hand  receives 
serious  injury  to  head  and  receives  no  compensation  for  injury  only 
for  the  time  out.  A  hand  loses  entire  thumb  and  receives  less  com- 
pensation than  for  loss  of  ends  of  two  fingers.  Individuals,  firms, 
or  corporations  should  be  allowed  to  insure  themselves,  accepting, 
however,  the  provisions  of  the  compensation  act,  thereby  receiving 
the  protection  of  the  act  against  suits  under  the  common  law."  A 
sewing-machine  company,  700  employees,  "We  feel  as  though  re- 


SUGGESTIONS  BY   EMPLOYEES.  185 

sponsible  employers  should  be  allowed  to  carry  their  own  risk  and  settle 
with  their  employees  on  the  basis  of  the  rates  established  by  the  com- 
pensation act.  In  1912  we  paid  at  full-pay  rates  only  $734.53  for 
injuries,  and  doctors'  bills  were  $56  more.  This  is  of  course  small, 
but  larger  than  in  many  preceding  years.  We  are,  however,  con- 
templating taking  out  insurance  to  protect  against  the  possibility 
of  some  serious  accident. "  A  firm  of  attorneys,  "The  writer  believes 
in  the  theory  of  the  compensation  law,  but  regards  the  rate  of  com- 
pensation paid  to  the  injured  workman  as  too  small  in  many  instances 
under  the  Massachusetts  act."  A  foundry  company,  75  employees, 
"The  cost  of  insurance  is  so  great  to  the  employer  that  the  recompense 
to  the  employee  in  most  cases  looks  decidedly  small.  It  would  seem 
as  though  a  better  adjustment  might  be  made."  A  shoe-manufac- 
turing company,  300  employees,  "Think  the  time  for  compensation 
should  begin  after  the  first  week,  and  not  the  second,  as  this  is  a 
hardship  on  many  employees."  A  laundry,  35  employees,  "Full 
compensation  from  time  of  accident,  if  not  caused  by  disobedience." 
A  company  manufacturing  linen  threads  and  twines,  500  employees, 
"So  far  as  our  experience  goes,  the  present  law  is  satisfactory." 
Shoe  manufacturers,  5,000  employees,  "We  feel  that  in  case  of  minor 
injuries,  the  present  compensation  act  works  a  hardship  on  the  in- 
jured employee.  No  doubt  that  in  cases  of  more  serious  injury  it  is 
beneficial.  It  also  costs  a  shoe  manufacturer  nearly  three  times  as 
much  as  the  previous  insurance  cost.  As  there  are  few  people  se- 
riously injured  in  the  shoe  industry,  we  feel  that  it  is  a  great  hardship 
on  the  manufacturer  to  have  to  pay  this  increased  amount  of  insur- 
ance." Manufacturers  of  paper  goods,  2,000  employees,  "Cut  out 
stock  insurance  companies.  Principle  will  be  preserved  only  through 
mutuals  and  the  best  ideals  of  prevention  finally  developed  only 
through  them."  Importers,  publishers,  and  dealers  in  pictures  and 
manufacturers  of  picture  and  mirror  frames,  50  employees,  "Have  the 
employee  bear  part  of  the  expense,  as  in  Germany."  A  grocery  firm, 
13  employees,  "Protect  both  sides.  The  inability  of  the  small 
employer  to  give  compensation  in  case  of  accident,  and  being  obliged 
to  do  so,  means  the  wreckage  of  his  entire  business."  An  iron  foun- 
dry, 115  employees,  "Let  the  man  pay  for  his  own  injuries.  Business 
is  already  taxed  too  much."  A  printing  company,  125  employees, 
"I  think  the  law  fails  when  it  doesn't  give  compensation  from  the 
time  the  person  is  injured.  In  our  State  the  injured  does  not  receive 
any  compensation  until  the  fifteenth  day,  although  I  believe  there  was 
an  amendment  to  the  act  last  year  which  reduces  it  to  ten  days.  Of 
course  there  are  good  arguments  which  can  be  made  on  either  side, 
but  it  doesn't  seem  to  me  fair  that  we  should  enact  a  bill  to  guard 
against  imposition  and  fraud  to  the  detriment  of  the  honest  work- 
man." A  shoe-machinery  company,  4,000  employees,  "An  oppor- 
tunity for  self -insurance  under  proper  restrictions  and  supervision. 
Each  concern  would  then  pay  not  only  according  to  the  risk  of  the 
business  but  also  according  to  the  risk  of  its  method  of  conducting 
that  business.  In  other  words,  a  factory  doing  efficient  safeguarding 
of  machinery  would  obtain  corresponding  benefit."  A  soda  fountain 
company,  193  employees,  "The  Massachusetts  law  unquestionably 
can  be  improved  upon  and  we  understand  that  several  proposed 
changes  are  in  contemplation,  but  personally  we  have  no  recom- 
mendations." 


186  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

MICHIGAN. 

Of  the  Michigan  replies  fully  a  third  offer  no  suggestions,  while 
another  third  speak  well  of  the  act  or  say  that  it  is  too  early  for 
amendments  or  that  they  have  as  yet  had  no  claims  to  pay,  or  in 
other  manner  they  signify  reluctance  in  offering  suggestions.  Of 
those  commenting  on  the  law,  several  favor  a  more  prompt  notifica- 
tion of  the  claims  than  the  act  requires;  others  protest  against  paying 
in  cases  of  intoxication;  others  regard  the  rates  as  high.  The  fol- 
lowing reports  reflect  the  opinions  of  Michigan  employers  from  various 
points  of  view:  A  lumber  manufacturing  firm,  425  employees:  "An 
employee  gets  a  slight  injury,  goes  back  to  work,  then  quits,  goes  to 
some  other  town,  falls  sick  or  gets  some  physician  to  back  him  up, 
and  then  claims  compensation  for  original  injury.  Would  suggest 
that  if  workman  left  his  employer  after  injury  without  written  per- 
mission, he  should  waive  that  claim."  A  manufacturer  of  underwear 
and  hosiery,  60  employees:  " It  has  not  been  in  operation  long  enough 
to  judge,  as  we  have  had  no  practical  experience  with  accidents,  but 
if  practical  I  would  cancel  employer's  liability  in  cases  where  men 
became  intoxicated  and  were  unfit  to  carry  out  their  obligations  in 
rendering  service  for  wages  received,  and  because  of  their  condition 
were  injured.  If  the  employee  could  be  made  to  coinsure,  as  the 
employer  is  compelled  to  do  with  fire  insurance,  it  might  prevent 
some  accidents  which  have  been  brought  to  my  notice  where  the 
employer  was  forced  to  pay  for  the  death  of  an  employee  when  the 
expenses  could  have  more  justly  been  charged  up  against  the  man 
who  sold  the  liquor  or  the  man  who  drank  it."  A  paper  company, 
150  employees:  "Cut  out  all  compensation  where  employee  is  not 
attending  to  his  duties  as  ordered."  A  manufacturer  of  store,  bank, 
bar,  and  office  fixtures,  35  employees:  "Should  be  glad  to  welcome 
any  changes  that  would  reduce  our  annual  premium  from  the  amount 
it  now  is."  An  iron  and  aluminum  foundry,  140  employees:  "Too 
much  authority  given  the  commission;  no  redress  given  employer. 
We  should  be  given  opportunity  to  go  to  court  in  case  of  prejudiced 
decision,  which  will  happen  as  well  as  it  has  with  courts,  and  one  de- 
cision should  not  be  final,  in  our  opinion."  A  manufacturing  foundry 
and  machine  shop,  95  employees:  "Physical  condition  and  age  of 
employee  should  be  taken  into  consideration.  Those  so  old  as  to  be 
practically  pensioners  should  be  taken  care  of  to  a  less  extent,  or  some 
other  way."  A  hardware  merchant,  80  employees:  "We  do  not  like 
the  obligation  to  report  every  trivial  accident.  Much  rather  follow 
old  practice  of  taking  care  of  the  wounded  in  our  own  way."  A 
commercial  photography,  engraving,  and  printing  company,  100 
employees:  "Part  of  the  insurance  should  be  carried  by  general  tax — 
approximately  one-half.  When  accidents  happen  for  which  the 
management  is  in  no  way  responsible  and  could  not  have  overcome, 
it  is  an  injustice  for  it  to  carry  all  the  burden."  A  manufacturer  of 
wood  pulleys  and  washboards,  300  employees:  "Think  present  law 
should  have  a  longer  test.  Its  worst  features  seem  to  be  the  tendency 
to  disbar  from  needed  employment  the  old  and  physically  weak,  pen- 
sioners, etc.,  whom  the  employer  would  continue  through  charity  if 
the  burden  were  not  so  great."  Brass  works,  manufacturers  of 
plumbing  goods,  400  employees:  "The  method  of  appointing  board  of 
compensation  should  be  fixed  to  give  the  employer  fair  show.  Present 


SUGGESTIONS   BY  EMPLOYEES.  187 

board  is  all  for  employee,  and  we  have  been  obliged  to  threaten  to 
withdraw  from  law  in  order  to  get  settlement  in  recent  case."  A 
manufacturer  of  wooden  ware,  15  employees:  "  As  it  stands,  the  manu- 
facturer has  no  redress  at  all;  he  is  obliged  to  carry  heavy  stock 
insurance  or  run  the  risk  of  standing  heavy  damages.  We  would 
suggest  that  the  employee  stand  his  own  expenses  unless  the  accident 
was  caused  by  the  gross  neglect  of  the  employer."  A  lumber  com- 
pany, building  material,  and  interior  finishing,  20  employees:  "Com- 
pensation should  cover  all  regular  employees,  regardless  of  occupa- 
tion. Farm  laborers  and  domestics  should  be  included,  we  believe," 
A  city  gas  company,  1,200  employees:  "  (1)  Compensation  should  not 
be  extended  where  personal  negligence  can  be  shown  by  employer. 
The  present  law  and  its  enforcement  tends  to  carelessness  on  the  part 
of  employee.  The  employee  should  be  compelled  to  assist  in  bet- 
tering industrial  conditions.  (2)  If  above  change  were  made,  then  I 
would  be  in  favor  of  starting  compensation  after  first  week  of  time 
lost  instead  of  at  the  end  of  second  week."  A  coal  operating  associa- 
tion (consisting  of  seven  independent  companies),  3,000  employees: 
"Any  change  that  will  tend  to  lessen  opportunity  for  petty  legalized 
graft  will  be  welcomed.  Otherwise  act  is  very  fair  to  all."  Car- 
penter contractor,  22  employees:  "Make  the  employees  pay  a  part  of 
the  cost  of  insurance;  then  they  would  be  responsible  with  the  employer 
and  thus  add  to  their  care  against  accidents."  A  metal-stamping 
company,  62  employees:  "It  seems  to  us  that  the  employee's  time 
should  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  employer  while  compensation  is  being 
paid.  It  frequently  happens  in  our  business  that  a  man's  hands  are 
injured  and  prevent  him  from  handling  work  at  a  punch  press,  but 
leaving  him  in  perfectly  good  shape  for  employment  as  a  messenger 
or  doing  other  work  about  our  plant  that  does  not  require  the  use  of 
the  injured  member.  The  present  tendency  is  to  stay  at  home  and 
loaf  and  to  make  a  fellow  slow  in  getting  back  to  his  job."  Manu- 
facturers of  heavy  chemicals,  1,500  employees,  "Workmen  to  be 
compelled  to  report  accidents  at  time  of  same.  We  have  had  work- 
men apply  for  compensation  two  months  after  accident — when  acci- 
dent was  a  minor  one — and  in  one  case  claim  was  fraudulent.  Em- 
ployer should  have  full  authority  in  selection  of  the  physician."  A 
company  manufacturing  automobile  steel  rims,  50  employees,  "We 
understand  that  employers  in  this  State  are  held  liable  for  accidents 
or  injury  to  employees  after  business  hours,  even  though  employees 
are  through  work  for  the  day  and  are  hanging  around  employer's 
property,  same  also  at  noon  hour.  Consider  this  a  bad  loophole  for 
1  outside  play.' '  Flour-mill  company,  10  employees,  "Repeal  of  the 
public  liability  part  of  the  act  or  law.  Think  it  unjust  to  make 
employers  liable  for  accidents,  on  their  premises,  to  persons  not  in 
their  emplov."  A  fuel  and  gas  company,  125  employees,  "Make 
farmers  liable  for  farm  employees  as  well."  Manufacturers  of  wood- 
enware  and  lumber,  450  employees,  "We  have  a  very  good  law. 
There  is  a  little  too  much  red  tape — too  much  clerical  work.  Trivial 
accidents  should  not  be  reported.  Should  not  be  necessary  to  make 
payment  weekly.  A  business  concern  would  cut  the  clerical  work  in 
half  and  then  some.  It  is  a  burden  on  the  State  and  also  the  em- 
ployer and  no  one  is  benefited.  Twice  as  many  reports  required  as 
are  actually  needed — burdensome,  useless.  The  law  should  be  made 
to  apply  to  every  employer  of  labor,  the  farmer  with  his  deadly  corn 


188  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

shredder,  as  well  as  the  manufacturer  with  his  protected  machinery. 
No  injured  person  should  become  a  burden  on  society.  Ot  erwise 
we  think  we  have  a  fine  law,  and  even  as  it  is  we  prefer  it  to  the  old 
condition  where  we  had  to  deal  with  the  ambulance  chasers.  It  is 
also  bringing  about  better  feeling  between  employee  and  employer." 
Sleeping  garment  mills,  80  employees,  "Make  absolutely  clear  those 
conditions  under  which  a  workman  can  not  recover  or  can  not  recover 
fully;  in  other  words,  define  clearly  any  responsibility  the  workman 
is  to  have."  Salt  and  lumber  company,  485  employees,  "Regulate 
charges  of  physicians  and  do  away  with  excessive  charging."  Whole- 
sale hardware,  200  employees,  "We  might  suggest  that  the  employer 
have  some  recourse  in  court.  Our  interpretation  of  the  law  is  that  if 
one  of  our  employees  be  injured  we  have  no  defense  as  the  law  now 
stands."  Hardware  supply  company,  43  employees,  "Not  now, 
except  that  farmers  should  be  compelled  to  come  under  the  pro- 
vision of  the  law  just  the  same  as  manufacturers."  Manufacturers 
of  light  cars,  1,000  employees,  "In  our  State  think  the  time  for  filing 
claims  (three  months)  is  too  long,  as  it  leaves  matters  open  to  fraud; 
witnesses  may  be  scattered  and  recollections  of  details  confused." 
Copper-mining  company,  200  employers,  "Injured  employee's  com- 
pensation should  be  subject  to  garnishment  for  board  and  support." 
rackers  of  canned  fruits  and  vegetables,  300  employees,  "Minimum 
without  compensation  to  injured  employee  should  be  reduced  from 
two  weeks  to  one  week.  We  pay  all  injured  employees  for  all  time 
lost,  and  we  should  be  reimbursed  by  our  insurance  company." 
Company  manufacturing  brass  furniture  trimmings,  200  employees, 
"Have  all  laws  of  labor  national,  so  as  to  give  all  equal  chances  and 
not  burden  one  State  to  the  benefit  of  others.  This  should  certainly 
include  hoars  of  labor;  we  are  working  9  hours  and  all  other  manu- 
facturers of  similar  goods  are  working  10."  Brush  company,  125 
employees,  "Traveling  salesmen  and  agents  should  be  excepted"  from 
the  law;  too  complex;  they  visit  too  many  States,  and  questions 
are  liable  to  arise  whether  covered  by  insurance  or  not.  Some  carry 
side  lines  for  different  people.  Can't  determine  whether  they  are 
actually  in  your  employ  24  hours  a  day  or  not.  Have  other  insur- 
ance usually  and  law  not  necessary  for  their  protection."  Cooperage 
and  lumber  company,  500  to  600  employees,  "Law  should  be  amended 
to  exclude  from  its  benefits  or  compensation  men  injured  who  are 
found  to  have  been  drinking  or  drunk  to  any  extent,  which  employer 
or  representative  in  charge  of  such  employee  could  not  ascertain  or  be 
aware  of  at  tune  of  injury."  Motor  company,  250  employees, 
"Think  we  should  have  more  defense  in  case  of  willfull  removing  of 
guards  by  workmen  and  doing  things  against  rules  and  warnings." 
Lumber  company,  250  employees,  "Law  is  all  right  now."  Paper 
company,  1,100  employees,  "Think  compensation  should  be  paid  by 
State  rather  than  by  individual  employers." 

NEVADA. 

From  Nevada  came  very  few  suggestions  as  to  changes  in  the  law. 
Drug  company,  3  employees,  "We  believe  the  law  should  not  include 
such  vocations  as  drug  clerks,  grocery  clerks,  dry  goods  and  general 
merchandise  clerks,  as  we  have  never  known  a  clerk  to  be  injured  while 
on  duty  in  these  vocations,  but  many  were  hurt  joy  riding  and  various 


SUGGESTIONS  BY  EMPLOYERS.  189 

ways  while  off  duty.  We  believe  98  per  cent  of  the  owners  of  stores 
can  spend  an  average  lifetime  and  not  have  an  accident  with  any 
help  employed.  Where  the  probabilities  are  so  remote  it  works  an 
unnecessary  hardship  on  store  owners  to  make  pay-roll  reports  and 
monthly  remittances  for  the  very  small  amounts."  Department 
store,  80  employees,  "Lower  rate.  Been  in  business  12  years  without 
any  loss,  so  rate  seems  excessive.  We  do  carry  auto  insurance — 
both  for  driver  and  accidents.  This  State  rate  would  cost  us  about 
$325  a  year."  Mining  company,  5  employees,  "  Nothing  said  about 
physician's  fees,  and  compensation  allowed  will  not  pay  his  fee  in 
any  instance."  Clothing  store,  8  employees,  "It  is  a  good  proposi- 
tion for  employer  and  employee  in  any  business  or  occupation  where 
there  is  a  risk." 

NEW   HAMPSHIRE. 

From  New  Hampshire,  the  only  emphatic  suggestion  is  from  a 
dressing  mill  and  shook  factory,  15  employees,  "Make  the  law  com- 
pulsory and  force  the  insurance  companies  out  of  business." 

NEW   JERSEY. 

Among  the  suggestions  contained  in  the  reports  from  New  Jersey 
are  the  following:  A  brewery,  75  employees,  "Insurance  companies 
should  be  compelled  to  pay  full  damages  instead  of  only  part." 
Another  brewing  company,  150  employees,  "Our  Jersey  law  does 
not  require  immediate  report  of  accident  by  employee  to  employer, 
which  should  be  changed  so  that  our  employee  must  report  an  acci- 
dent before  leaving  his  work  for  the  day  to  his  superior  or  any  other 
superior.  This  would  then  prevent  the  repetition  of  the  incident  by 
superior  having  knowledge  of  faulty  machinery  which  caused  acci- 
dent. It  would  also  eliminate  the  employer  paying  for  accidents 
not  occurring  during  hours  of  employment  or  in  discharge  of  duties." 
A  peach-basket  and  veneer  manufacturer,  3  employees,  "It  should 
be  adjusted  according  to  the  business  a  person  does."  A  chemical 
company,  tar  products,  25  employees,  "In  the  case  of  companies 
which  are  not  public-utilities  companies,  we  think  the  law  should  be 
less  stringent  in  regard  to  accidents  to  nonemployees  while  they  are 
on  the  company's  property."  A  glass  manufacturing  company, 
1,100  employees,  "If  a  man  is  injured,  we  should  repair  the  damage, 
if  in  our  power,  the  same  as  if  he  were  a  machine  that  accidentally 

fot  broken  or  disabled  while  in  our  employ."  An  architect  and 
uilder,  50  employees,  "Because  of  danger  of  falling,  I  am  forced  to 
hire  only  young  men.  This  is  a  hardship  on  the  older  ones,  which 
should  not  be.  Household  servants  should  not  come  under  the  law. 
An  employee's  carelessness  should  cut  some  figure  in  compensation." 
A  firm  manufacturing  shoes,  50  employees,  "Judges  working  for  the 
politicians.  Employer  always  unjustly  imposed  upon.  Make  all 
cases  be  tried  before  a  jury.  Have  judges  give  the  manufacturers  a 
chance  and  not  cater  to  labor  unions."  Quarrymen,  roadbuilders, 
and  dealers  in  coal  and  building  material,  200  employees,  "If  we  un- 
derstand the  latest  amendments,  allow  the  defense  of  negligence  on 
the  part  of  the  employer.  We  think  the  law  to  be  a  fair  one." 
Manufacturers  of  monumental  work,  30  employees,  "We  favor  com- 
pulsory insurance  by  all  employees — same  as  laws  of  Germany." 


190  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

OHIO. 

As  the  Ohio  law  is  to  become  compulsory  on  January  1,  1914,  the 
replies  to  the  commission's  questionnaires  contained  comparatively 
few  suggestions  for  changes.  The  following,  however,  refer  to  points 
bearing  on  the  general  principles  and  the  administration  of  compen- 
sation laws: 

Gas  and  powder  company,  45  employees,  "Federal  governing  in 
all  States,  making  our  manufacturers  in  one  State  on  an  equal  footing 
with  those  in  another  State,  if  they  must  go  into  competition.''  Shoe 
machinery  company,  20  employees,  "  Would  suggest  that  the 
inspector  of  factories  and  the  department  of  industrial  insurance 
cooperate,  and  that  the  factory  inspection  department  report  any 
carelessness  or  neglect  found  in  factories,  relating  to  accident  risks, 
to  the  insurance  department.  Think  every  factory  ought  to  be 
inspected  for  the  State  either  by  the  State  factory  inspector  or  the 
insurance  department  at  least  once  annually  for  the  purpose  of  acci- 
dent prevention."  House  painter,  6  employees,  "I  would  make  it 
compulsory  on  everybody.  All  who  employ  five  or  more  must 
insure  under  this  act;  those  employing  less  than  five,  may.  Many 
small  concerns  such  as  painters,  plasterers,  plumbers,  tinners,  elec- 
tricians, etc.,  regularly  employ  less  than  five  workmen.  The  em- 
ployer of  these  concerns,  who  has  a  home  or  is  '  worth  something,' 
must  take  out  accident  insurance  in  order  to  protect  himself,  thereby 
adding  from  1J  to  2  per  cent  to  his  overhead  expenses;  but  the  man 
who  has  nothing  that  you  can  levy  on  in  case  one  of  his  employees 
meets  with  an  accident  does  not  insure.  This  is  not  just  to  the 
employee  nor  fair  to  the  competitor  who  does  insure.  If  everybody 
insured  under  a  compulsory  law  the  rate  would  be  reduced  to  a 
minimum  and  not  be  a  burden  on  anyone."  Foundry  company,  oil 
stoves,  1,200  employees,  "We  can  not  see  the  justice  of  requiring 
from  employers  the  payment  to  the  State  fund  of  10  per  cent  of  the 
assessed  premium  when  such  employers  desire  and  are  financially 
able  to  carry  their  own  risk,  and  we  have  still  to  be  convinced  that 
it  is  either  necessary  or  desirable  for  the  State  to  handle  an  insurance 
fund  and  make  payments  direct  to  those  who  are  injured."  Art 
glass  works,  leaded  glass  and  glass  beveling,  25  employees,  "The 
workmen  in  our  opinion  should  pay  20  per  cent  instead  of  10."  Tool 
company,  oil,  gas,  and  artesian  well  tools,  machinery,  and  supplies 
for  same,  85  to  95  employees,  "  If  employees  were  to  pay  a  greater  pro- 
portion of  the  premium  they  would  take  the  trouble  to  be  more 
careful — when  they  pay  so  small  an  amount  they  can  afford  to  take 
greater  risks  and  be  more  careless  knowing  that  their  returns  will  be 
considerably  more  than  it  has  cost  them."  Lumber  company,  250 
employees,  "Think  the  employee  should  pay  25  per  cent  of  the 
premium  instead  of  10,  as  this  amount  is  so  small  it  makes  it  impos- 
sible to  collect  the  amount  when  paying  semimonthly."  Manufac- 
turers of  metal  wheels  for  agricultural  implements,  300  employees, 
"The  employees  should  be  obliged  to  contribute  a  small  proportion 
of  the  indemnity  fund,  thus  relieving  them  of  the  stigma  of  charity 
and  impressing  them  with  their  share  of  the  responsibility  in  avoiding 
and  preventing  accidents."  Soap  and  laundry  supplies  company, 
"We  believe  all  legitimate  insurance  companies  should  be  allowed 
to  operate  in  any  State,  providing  they  can  offer  to  the  purchaser  of 


SUGGESTIONS  BY  EMPLOYEES.  191 

insurance  as  good  protection  to  both  the  employer  and  the  employee 
as  the  State  can.  The  State  of  Ohio  by  its  compulsory  act  practi- 
cally prohibits  competition  and  their  manual  will  show  that  in  most 
cases  their  rates  are  a  great  deal  higher  than  the  employer  formerly 
paid."  Machinery  manufacturers,  50  employees,  "Cheaper  rates." 
Company  manufacturing  wood  furniture,  75  employees,  "Lower  rates, 
of  course,  but  one  reduction  has  already  been  made,  and  it  is  reason- 
able to  expect  further  changes  downward."  Manufacturing  com- 
pany, 500  employees,  "Rate  is  at  least  50  per  cent  too  high,  but  we 
are  promised  a  reduction  so  that  each  class  will  pay  for  actual  losses 
only,  the  compensation  to  be  paid  out  of  general  fund.  If  this  is 
carried  out  the  Ohio  plan  will  be  O.  K."  Brick  company,  pressed 
sand  lime  brick,  20  employees,  "The  writer,  originally  opposed  to  the 
State  plan  is  now  convinced  that  it  is  a  very  good  law  and  believes 
that  when  compulsory  and  the  rates  properly  adjusted  practically 
every  employer  as  well  as  employee  will  be  satisfied.  We  will  be 
glad  to  have  the  compulsory  feature  in  force,  for  at  present  none  of 
our  competitors  carry  insurance  of  any  kind  and  consequently  do  not 
consider  that  item  in  the  matter  of  costs.  The  original  rate  quoted 
us  was  $1.35.  This  was  later  reduced  to  85  cents  and  in  July,  this 
year,  the  rate  when  we  came  under  the  State  plan  was  76 J  cents. 
This  is  less  than  we  could  buy  liability  insurance  for  at  this  writing." 
Buggy  company,  50  employees,  "Reduce  the  rate.  So  long  as  we 
can  get  a  33-cent  rate  of  independent  companies  we  do  not  feel  justi- 
fied in  paying  50  to  80  cent  rate."  Confection  company,  75  em- 
ployees, "Increase  of  allowance  to  injured  employee  to  $15  per  week. 
As  it  is  now  maximum  allowance  is  $12.  Believe  average  employee 
can  not  get  along  on  $12  after  he  loses  one  week  as  now  required  in 
the  act."  Printing  works  company,  70  employees,  "It's  satisfac- 
tory." Lumber  company,  8  to  10  employees,  "Very  good  as  it  is." 
Manufacturers  of  various  articles  from  brass,  35  employees,  "The 
Ohio  law  is  in  its  infancy  and,  in  our  opinion,  is  excellent  in  its 
ideas."  Planing  mill  and  lumber  yard,  18  employees,  "We  are  not 
in  favor  of  a  State  monopoly."  Iron  and  steel  company,  rolling 
mill,  manufacturing  structural  tubing,  railroad  tie  plates,  and  agri- 
cultural implement  shapes,  450  employees,  "We  dislike  the  com- 
pulsory feature  of  the  Ohio  law,  giving  the  State  a  complete  monopoly 
of  the  liability  insurance  business.  We  dislike  the  feature  compelling 
us  to  insure  office  clerks  whose  duties  are  entirely  independent  of  the 
mill  operations  and  the  risk  on  whom  is  practically  nil.  Employers 
are  not  fully  protected  under  this  law,  as  the  employee  has  the  right 
to  sue  under  certain  conditions  regardless  of  whether  the  employer 
has  or  has  not  accepted  insurance  or  protection  under  the  act." 
Sheet  and  tube  company,  8,000  employees,  "Our  principal  objection 
to  the  compensation  law  of  the  State  is  the  fact  that  it  does  not  en- 
courage the  prevention  of  accidents.  For  this  reason  we  were  op- 
posed to  it  at  the  time  it  was  being  discussed,  but  as  it  seems  to  be 
the  most  satisfactory  law  we  could  have  passed,  we  are  very  glad  to 
go  in  under  it  and  encourage  it  in  every  way  we  can,  with  the  hope 
that  experience  may  prove  the  desirability  of  amending  it  to  include 
a  feature  which  will  tend  to  minimize  accidents."  Steel  foundry 
company,  300  employees,  "Make  it  elective  instead  of  compulsory, 
so  that  State  officers  will  be  kept  on  their  mettle  and  compelled  to 
administer  their  offices  in  an  efficient  manner."  Glass  company, 


192  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

250-300  employees,  "The  State  should  not  compel  us  to  buy  insur- 
ance from  them  alone,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others."  Railway  com- 
pany, "The  new  compensation  law  of  Ohio  does  not  in  fact  apply  to 
railroads,  section  51  eliminating  at  least  99  per  cent  of  the  employees. 
The  death  schedule  in  the  Ohio  law  is  the  blanket  kind,  and  is  objec- 
tionable for  the  reason  that  it  does  not  consider  the  age,  relationship, 
and  number  of  the  beneficiaries,  treating  all  cases  on  the  same  basis." 
Company  manufacturing  roofing  and  sheet  metal  and  warm  air  fur- 
naces, 60  employees,  "We  might  offer  the  suggestion  that  the  State 
liability  board  make  investigations  at  intervals  of  about  six  months 
for  the  purpose  of  safeguarding  employees."  Pulp  and  paper  com- 
pany, 250  employees,  "If  we  are  forced  to  insure  in  the  State,  the  law 
should  make  us  exempt  from  damage;  or  if  sued  by  employees,  State 
should  defend  the  case  at  its  own  expense."  Leather  company,  22 
employees,  "The  employer  is  not  protected  against  the  expense  of 
lawsuit  and  damages  as  under  the  old  liability  companies.  The  em- 
ployee still  has  his  right  to  sue  for  damages,  and  there  are  very  few 
accidents  for  which  the  courts  will  not  hold  the  company  liable. 
Under  the  compensation  act  the  employee  can  collect  both  ways." 
Woodworkers,  38  employees,  "Compensation  law  should  provide  for 
a  final  settlement;  as  it  is,  we  have  a  large  premium  to  pay  and  still 
are  liable  to  direct  action."  Painters,  10  employees,  "I  suggest  that 
all  employers  employing  labor,  regardless  of  the  number  in  his 
employ,  be  compelled  to  carry  liability.  This  would  class  all  in 
equality  to  competition,  especially  in  our  trade.  The  majority  of 
JODS,  whether  a  large  employer  or  small,  are  being  executed  with 
five  men  or  less,  and  you  will  find  that  among  such  small  groups 
accidents  occur  as  often,  and  maybe  more  often,  than  where  a  larger 
number  are  employed.  Take,  for  instance,  our  work  on  a  scaffold 
where  two  men  usually  work;  this  is  where  accidents  mostly  occur. 
Why  should  employers  in  this  class  be  exempt  from  the  law  ?"  Book 
company,  281  employees,  "The  classification  of  plants,  rating  them 
according  to  the  safety  devices  used  as  against  fire  and  accidents." 
A  steam-shovel  company,  2,200  employee^,  "We  would  suggest  in 
computing  weekly  benefits  that  in  a  factory  working  only  six  days 
per  week  the  fractional  part  of  weeks  be  computed  on  a  six-day  basis 
instead  of  seven  days  as  at  present  in  Ohio.  Second,  in  total  or 
partial  disability  cases  where  a  fixed  number  of  weeks'  pay  are 
allowed  to  the  injured,  would  suggest  that  this  should  be  changed  so 
that  at  any  time  the  injured  is  able  to  resume  work  the  pay  from  the 
State  fund,  which  is  paid  bi-weekly,  should  stop."  A  decorating  com- 
pany, frescoing  and  dealing  in  wall  papers,  12  employees,  "The  work- 
man should  pay  about  one-seventh,  as  in  Germany,  as  at  present  he 
is  so  well  paid  and  small  firms  are  not  making  much  money  on  the 
whole." 

RHODE    ISLAND. 

In  Rhode  Island,  the  general  opinion  expressed  is  that,  the  law 
having  been  in  operation  only  one  year,  experience  under  it  is  too 
limited  to  give  any  reliable  data  as  a  basis  for  changes.  A  cotton 
manufacturing  company,  625  employees,  "It  is  working  very  satis- 
factory with  us."  A  company  manufacturing  cotton  yarns  and 
weaving  duck  fabrics,  dress  and  curtain  goods,  "The  Rhode  Island 
laws  need  to  be  made  more  explicit  at  many  points."  A  label  works, 


SUGGESTIONS   BY   EMPLOYEES.  193 

20  employees,  "The  compensation  is  too  small  where  the  injury  is  not 
the  fault  of  the  injured  employee,  and  in  certain  cases  no  payment 
should  be  made — a  boy  doing  errands  who  jumps  on  a  wagon  and  is 
hurt,  for  instance." 

WASHINGTON. 

From  the  State  of  Washington  the  replies  of  numerous  employers 
evince  a  lively  interest  in  the  act.  Many  report  a  disinclination  to  sug- 
gest changes  in  the  law,  saying  it  is  satisfactory  to  them  as  it  stands. 
Others  think  that  there  has  not  been  sufficient  tune  for  a  test  of  the 
various  features.  Demand  for  a  lower  rate  occurs  often  enough  to 
arrest  attention.  The  law  prescribed  pay  of  the  physician  and  the 
manner  of  his  selection  are  frequently  mentioned.  The  classification 
of  industries  is  pronounced  objectionable,  especially  in  out-door 
occupations.  Under  this  heading,  a  vehicle  manufacturer  employing 
12  persons,  not  having  had  an  accident  in  15  years  serious  enough  to 
call  for  the  services  of  a  physician,  is  classified  with  large  shipbuflding 
plants ;  a  meat  packer,  with  300  hands,  notes  that  neither  livery  stables 
nor  retail  meat  houses  are  classified;  a  firm  of  wool  pullers,  with  22 
employees,  says:  "Too  many  industries  are  classed  in  groups;"  an 
employed  paper  hanger  objects  to  being  classed  with  construction  iron- 
workers; logging  camps,  lumber  mills,  and  shingle  mills,  and  team 
owners  hauling  poles  are  in  one  class,  with  which  grouping  a  "  Cedar 
poles  and  piling"  firm,  with  110  employees,  finds  fault.  Following 
are  typical  letters,  covering  the  various  suggestions  offered:  Coal  and 
coke  company,  150  employees, t  i  In  fixing  the  percentage  on  coal  mines, 
the  kind  of  mines  should  be  taken  into  consideration  and  rates  fixed 
accordingly."  Electric  shop,  4  employees,  "The  law  practically 
catches  only  the  men  remaining  in  Ibusiness,  but  overlooks  in  the 
building  trades  numbers  of  contractors  and  large  amounts  which 
would  naturally  be  due  from  them,  and  if  collected  would  reduce  the 
rate  considerably."  Lumber  company,  200  employees,  "We  think 
the  law  a  good  one,  and  is  to  be  commended,  with  the  exception  of 
minor  accidents,  to  which  we  think  too  much  attention  is  being  paid. 
We  find  among  our  men  that  the  slightest  bruise  will  cause  them  to 
lay  off  and  take  advantage  of  the  law  in  making  a  claim  where  none 
should  be  allowed.  Before  the  law  went  into  effect  no  attention  by 
the  men  was  paid  to  such  small  bruises  or  splinter  pricks  and  cuts. 
With  this  eliminated  we  think  the  law  an  excellent  one."  Manu- 
facturers of  electrical  apparatus,  30  employees,  "Men  are  paid  for  the 
most  trivial  injuries,  rrior  to  the  passage  of  the  law  in  this  State 
this  company,  which  has  been  in  operation  for  over  10  years,  had 
never  carried  liability  insurance,  had  never  paid,  or  been  requested  to 
pay,  one  cent  for  damages.  We  are  now  compelled  to  report  to  the 
State  commissioners  the  slightest  possible  accident,  and  after  making 
such  a  report  if  the  man  cares  to  lay  off  he  may  do  so,  and  if  he  can 
get  a  physician  to  take  care  of  him  he  is  able  to  draw  his  weekly 
benefits  from  the  State  fund  without  question."  Lumber  company, 
36  employees,  "We  believe  that  the  compensation  law  as  enforced  in 
this  State  is  just  and  fair  toward  both  employer  and  employee.  If 
a  man  meets  with  an  accident  he  knows  just  what  he  is  going  to  get; 
there  is  no  haggling  or  compromising,  and  the  employer's  sleep  at  night 
is  not  disturbed  worrying  about  possible  damage  suits."  Sailmaker 
30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2 13 


194  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

and  rigger,  4  employees,  "It  is  the  best  ever;  a  working  man  should 
receive  75  per  cent  instead  of  60  per  cent  of  his  wages. "  Engraving 
company,  6  employees,  "I  believe  the  law  should  provide  for  physi- 
cian and  hospital  expenses.  As  it  is  now,  the  injured  employee 
often  gets  less  than  his  hospital  expenses  and  is  not  in  any  way  com- 
pensated for  his  injuries."  Manufacturer  blower  and  exhaust  sys- 
tems for  planing  mills,  etc.,  12  employees,  "The  compensation  laws, 
which  are  to  be  enacted  in  the  various  States,  should  conform  as 
closely  as  possible  to  a  certain  standard."  Wholesale  and  retail 
grocers,  70  employees,  "Its  extension  to  cover  every  kind  of  employ- 
ment. We  believe  the  plan  to  be  founded  on  equity,  and  from  our 
observations  faithfully  administered.  We  favor  legislation  to 
further  widen  its  scope."  Plastering  and  cement  contractor,  average 
about  25  employees,  "One  change  I  would  like  to  see  made;  the 
physician  as  it  is  now  gets  all  the  money.  I  had  one  man  hurt  last 
year;  the  man  got  $66  from  the  State,  the  doctor's  bill  was  $60.  So 
you  see  that  looks  bad,  as  the  doctor  gets  all  the  money,  and  another 
is  that  the  injured  has  to  wait  four  to  five  weeks  before  he  can  get 
any  money,  and  he  needs  the  money  most  right  away.  A  bad 
feature  as  it  is  now  is  to  locate  all  contractors  and  employers  of  labor. 
There  ought  to  be  some  way  that  all  employers  be  compelled  to 
notify  the  State  that  he  is  employing  men,  so  he  would  pay  his  share 
of  the  premiums  to  the  State;  as  it  is  now,  so  many  pay  nothing. 
All  employers,  in  my  opinion,  should  take  out  a  permit,  as  we  do  in 
our  city  departments  if  we  want  to  build  anything;  by  doing  that  all 
will  pay  their  part  to  the  fund,  and  not,  as  it  is  now,  just  the  con- 
tractors that  are  well  enough  known  and  are  easily  found.  I  think 
this  State  is  going  to  make  some  such  law;  if  all  the  employees  get 
protection  under  the  law,  all  employers  should  be  compelled  to  pay 
their  share  in  the  fund."  Coal  mining  company,  270  employees, 
"Where  employees  do  not  pay  so  much  per  month  for  medical  atten- 
tion, industrial  insurance  commission  snould  protect  physician  for 
amount  of  his  fees  from  amount  of  award."  Town  of  Eatonville, 
number  of  employees  ranges  from  5  to  100,  "The  town  of  Eatonville 
has  had  but  one  employee  injured  since  the  industrial  insurance  law 
went  into  effect.  The  case  was  peculiar  for  the  reason  that  a  work- 
man suffered  the  loss  of  one  eye  through  the  concussion  resulting 
from  a  heavy  dynamite  charge,  and  it  was  impossible  to  get  evidence 
that  the  accident  actually  resulted  from  such  concussion.  The 
workman's  claim  was  rejected."  The  findings  of  the  Industrial 
Insurance  Commission  is  final  in  each  case  of  claim,  except  as  of  their 
own  accord  they  may  reopen  an  investigation  after  having  rendered 
an  adverse  decision  on  a  claim.  This  law  covers  hazardous  employ- 
ment and  has  nothing  to  do  with  such  labor  as  is  not  considered 
'hazardous'  or  'extrahazardous.";  Flour  millers,  100  employees, 
"Some  system  to  hasten  payment,  or  at  least  part  payment,  to  assist 
the  injured  to  meet  pressing  bills."  Electric  company,  5  employees, 
"If  you  are  going  to  have  State  insurance,  have  it  so  an  employer  is 
protected,  in  place  of  only  partially.  Reasons:  One  of  my  employees 
covered  by  State  insurance  let  a  ladder  fall  and  struck  a  woman 
passing,  and  she  sued  for  damages  which  State  insurance  did  not 
cover.  What  is  the  good  of  insurance  if  an  employer  is  not  pro- 
tected against  the  acts  of  his  men  he  is  paying  State  insurance  on  ?<" 


SUGGESTIONS   BY   EMPLOYEES.  195 

General  contractors,  15  employees,  " Cover  all  classes  of  employees." 
Publishers  and  printers,  4  to  5  employees  besides  manager,  "Our 
Washington  law  does  not  pay  sufficient  to  compensate  for  injuries 
or  lost  time,  thus  requiring  workmen  to  carry  insurance  of  their  own, 
but  leaving  the  poorer  classes  of  workmen  (who  rarely  carry  insur- 
ance) to  be  compensated  only  20  to  30  per  cent  of  lost  wages."  Shoe 
manufacturing  company,  80  to  100  employees,  "More  careful  investi- 
gation of  accidents.  We  believe  the  State  could  be  more  conserva- 
tive in  making  awards.  There  are  too  many  opportunities  for  impos- 
ing on  the  State.  If  the  State  used  the  same  care  in  making  awards 
that  liability  companies  do,  we  believe  the  law  would  be  O.  K." 
Paints  and  wall-paper  company,  14  employees,  "Why  is  it  that  any 
one  doing  work,  government  work,  has  to  take  out  insurance  for  their 
men  ?  Why  does  the  compensation  act  cover  this  work  ? "  Laundry, 
70  employees,  "We  think  there  should  be  a  first-aid  clause,  with 
provisions  for  doctor  and  hospital  expenses."  Printing  and  binding 
company,  30  employees,  "By  careful  inquiry  by  Master  Printers' 
Association  we  learn  of  but  two  accidents  in  the  State  during  last 
five  years ;  am  therefore  convinced  that  rate  paid  is  larger  than  is 
justified."  Bridge  contractor,  12  employees,  ^Tremiums  might  be 
reduced  somewhat.  The  law  here  has  Ibeen  in  effect  about  two  years, 
and  there  has,  during  that  time,  accumulated  about  $1,000,000  more 
than  claims  have  amounted  to."  Logging  company,  125  to  150 
employees, ' i  There  is  a  move  to  compel  employers  to  pay  for  first  aid, 
but  we  are  opposed  to  this.  If  this  was  done  some  doctor  would  get 
the  appointment,  and  in  case  of  accident  we  would  have  to  notify 
and  send  for  doctor  so  appointed,  and  would  make  a  case  to  be 
adjusted.  Under  our  present  arrangement  we  get  a  man  on  our 
train  quickly  and  connect  with  main  line,  frequently  holding  the  main- 
line train  to  get  cripple  to  hospital  10  miles  away.  We  employ  the 
best  of  help  (hospital) ,  and  if  man  conies  out  all  right,  nothing  further 
is  done."  Lumber  mills,  shingle  mills,  and  logging  camps  are  all 
assessed  under  one  class  (class  10).  "We  believe  the  logging  camps 
have  a  much  higher  percentage  of  fatal  and  other  accidents  than  the 
lumber  mills,  and  should  be  in  another  class."  Logging  company, 
175  employees,  "In  the  logging  business  the  pay  roll  is  divided  into 
two  classes,  consisting  of  the  actual  logging  operation  and  the  railway 
work.  On  the  former  the  rate  is  2^  per  cent  and  on  the  latter  5. 
They  compel  us  to  put  all  men  working  on  railroad  into  the  5  per  cent 
class,  which  is  unjust,  as  there  is  no  risk  in  connection  with  pick  and 
shovel  men  and  wheelbarrow  men.  We  think  that  5  per  cent  should 
be  charged  on  railway  train  men  only."  Sandstone  quarrying,  160 
employees,  "If  a  man  gets  hurt  and  goes  to  the  hospital  the  time  is 
too  long  to  wait  from  one  to  two  months  before  receiving  compensa- 
tion. It  works  a  hardship  in  some  cases,  particularly  those  Having 
families  depending  upon  them.  As  a  whole,  we  consider  the  State 
compensation  act  a  good  law  for  all  concerned."  Brewing  and 
malting  company,  400  employees,  "The  State  of  Washington  law  in 
general  has  seemed  the  best  and  fairest,  to  both  employer  and  em- 
ployee, in  force  in  Europe  or  America  that  has  come  under  the 
observation  of  the  writer  after  going  over  many  of  them.  It  is 
humanitarian  and  has  resulted  in  establishing  a  more  satisfactory 
feeling  between  capital  and  labor  than  ever  existed  before."  Manu- 
facturers of  paper,  225  employees,  "First,  no  compensation  for 


196  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

employees  who  return  to  work  within  the  week.  Second,  no  com- 
pensation for  any  injury  the  first  week.  Third,  as  all  industries 
ought  to  bear  the  burden  of  their  risks,  and  such  burden  being 
charged  into  cost  of  operation,  the  consumer  in  the  final  analysis  will 
be  the  one  who  will  nave  to  pay  the  compensation;  therefore,  the 
workmen's  compensation,  if  possible,  should  be  uniform  and  apply 
to  every  State  in  the  Union.  Fourth,  the  present  law  of  the  State  of 
Washington  has  not  yet  been  passed  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court 
as  being  constitutional,  owing  to  the  act  being  'compulsory';  so 
employers  may  be  still  liable  to  an  action  for  damages,  the  stutute  of 
limitations  being  expressly  inoperative  during  the  period  this  law  is 
in  effect,  if  declared  unconstitutional.  The  amount  paid  by  the 
workmen's  compensation  act  would  be  deducted  from  any  damages 
allowed  by  the  court.  Fifth,  although  much  in  excess  in  cost  com- 
parative with  the  old  method,  we  are  in  favor  of  the  workmen's  com- 
pensation act,  providing  the  administration  is  justly  handled  and 
uniform  laws  enacted  in  all  States  of  the  Union."  Brewing  company, 
100  employees,  "  On  the  whole,  we  think  the  Washington  law  is  a  great 
benefit  to  both  employees  and  employers."  Portland  cement  com- 
pany, 140  employees,  "The  first-aid  feature  where  hospital  arrange- 
ment as  we  have  it  is  not  provided.  We  are  well  pleased  with  the 
law  and  its  workings,  as  are  also  our  employees." 

WISCONSIN. 

In   the   Wisconsin  reports,   about  one-half  the  replies  have   no 
suggestions.     In  the  opinion  of  several  large  employers,  as  well  as 

^Q  -  .  •*•-  -mi  ^       m  •r-iilJi..//.* 

small  c 
and 

toxication  o  „  ^     „ 

of  liability  in  such  cases  is  deemed  inequitable.  The  following  give 
various  views:  Manufacturers  of  grain  drills  and  feeders,  100  em- 
ployees, "Law  too  new  to  determine  effect.  If  our  present  law  is 
enforced  fairly  by  the  commission,  believe  it  will  be  beneficial  and 
will  accept  it  as  soon  as  present  policy  expires."  Lumber  company, 
200  employees,  "Injured  man  should  be  required  to  file  notice  of 
demand  for  compensation  within  20  days  after  accident.  Slight 
injuries  are  sometimes  overlooked  and  develop  seriously  later." 
Manufacturers  of  jute  container  box  board,  140  employees,  "Kulings 
are  too  complicated  and  varied.  Average  laboring  man  not  able  to 
familiarize  himself  with  the  conditions."  Real  estate  and  insurance, 
4  employees,  "Changes  should  eliminate  office  force  from  its  opera- 
tion. To  our  knowledge,  no  injury  to  an  office  employee  was  traced 
to  any  responsibility  or  neglect  of  his  employer."  Lumber  and 
cooperage,  40  employees  in  Wisconsin,  "As  the  law  is  intended  for 
benefit  of  employees  and  employers,  a  change  which  would  result 
more  entirely  in  benefit  to  them,  instead  of  in  large  part  to  insurance 
companies,  would  be  desirable."  Company  logging  forest  products, 
500  employees,  "Chiefly  one,  i.  e.,  that  the  employee  contribute 
toward  the  cost  of  the  compensation  paid  under  the  compensation 
act,  as  is  done  under  the  workmen's  compensation  law  in  force  in 
Germany."  Manufacturers  of  electric  cranes,  etc.,  550  employees, 
"Nationalize,  so  that  all  competing  concerns  are  on  same  basis." 
Manufacturers  and  dealers  hi  lumber  and  timber,  300  employees, 


SUGGESTIONS  BY   EMPLOYEES.  197 

"  As  employers  we  do  not  favor  the  law,  as  it  requires  closer  attention, 
is  more  expensive,  as  the  clerical  work  is  much  more,  because  of 
numerous  reports,  and  we  do  not  think  it  furnishes  any  better 
attention  or  service  from  the  workmen."  Paper  manufacturers,  120 
employees,  "In  our  opinion,  premiums  should  be  paid  to  State 
treasurer  and  the  Commonwealth  be  the  insurance  company.  We  are 
not  Socialists  either.'7  Brewing  company,  "To  have  employee  pay 
part  of  the  premium.  Tendency  is  that  employee  will  loaf  when  re- 
ceiving compensation  and  especially  if  he  carries  benefit  insurance 
in  some  insurance  company  or  society.  Under  our  compensation  law, 
employee  may  commit  fraud  unless  same  be  physically  examined 
before  beginning  employment;  for  instance,  rupture."  Brewing 
company,  30  employees,  "The  law  in  this  State  as  originally  passed 
met  my  approval,  but  the  danger  lies  in  succeeding  legislatures 
tinkering  with  it.7;  Manufacturers  of  lumber,  300  employees,  "We 
believe  that  every  employee  should  receive  the  same  consideration 
but,  as  our  law  reads,  only  those  who  work  for  companies  employing 
more  than  four  men  receive  compensation."  Lumper,  box  factory, 
and  planing  mill,  50  employees,  "The  employers  in  this  State  should 
have  some  protection  from  the  employee.  As  it  is,  there  is  none  except 
to  go  to  Wisconsin  commission  and"  for  petty  claims  we  had  better 
suffer."  Company  manufacturing  lime  and  quarrying  building 
stone,  25  employees,  "We  think  the  State  ought  to  carry  the  in- 
surance, which  can  be  done  at  at  least  one-half  the  rate  charged 
by  insurance  companies  at  the  present  time."  Plumbing  and  heat- 
ing contractors,  30  employees,  "Make  the  acceptance  compulsory." 
Box  factory,  planing  mill,  etc.,  11  employees,  "Would  suggest  tnat 
it  be  made  so  that  liability  insurance  would  not  cost  three  times 
what  it  was  before  the  compensation  law."  Brewing  company,  250 
employees,  "We  suggest  that  the  time  in  which  employees  commence 
to  draw  compensation  be  extended  from  eight  days  to  two  weeks,  and 
50  per  cent  of  wages  allowed  after  that  time,  with  the  maximum  wage 
of  $10  per  week  and  the  minimum  $6;  and  that  the  feature  of  in- 
toxication, instead  of  reducing  the  computation  of  wage  on  a  basis 
of  from  65  to  50  per  cent,  be  entirely  abrogated."  Lumber  com- 
pany, 400  to  1,500  employees,  "Intoxication  should  be  a  defense; 
petty  injuries  should  draw  less  compensation." 


NO.  7A.  STATISTICS. 
CALIFORNIA. 

MEMORANDUM  ON  THE  CALIFORNIA  INDUSTRIAL  ACCIDENT  EXPERIENCE  FOR  THE 
FIRST  10  MONTHS  OF  1913. 

[Prepared  for  the  National  Civic  Federation  by  the  Industrial  Accident  Board  of  the 

State  of  California.] 

To  the  compensation  provisions  of  chapter  399,  laws  of  1911,  com- 
monly known  as  the  Roseberry  liability  and  compensation  law,  1,109 
employers  of  labor  in  the  State  of  California  have  filed  acceptance  since 
the  act  went  into  effect  September  1,  1911.  The  act  applies  to  all 
employers  who  may  elect  to  its  provisions,  and  includes  employers 
of  agricultural  laborers  and  domestic  servants. 

All  employers  of  labor  within  the  State  of  California,  and  all  extra 
State  employers  of  labor,  the  employees  of  whom  operate  within  the 
State  of  California,  are  eligible  to  elect  to  the  compensation  provi- 
sions of  the  act. 

The  total  number  of  employers  eligible  to  such  election  is  estimated 
at  45,954,  and  the  number  of  workers  employed  is  estimated  at 
809,056. 

No  method  of  carrying  the  risk  is  provided  in  the  act,  the  employer 
being  left  free  to  carry  the  risk  at  his  own  option.  There  is  no  State 
insurance,  nor  State  mutual,  nor  -employers'  mutuals. 

By  chapter  53,  extra  session  laws  of  1911,  every  employer  of  labor 
within  the  State  of  California,  except  those  engaged  in  farming, 
dairying,  agricultural  or  horticultural  pursuits,  in  poultry  raising,  or 
domestic  service,  must  report  to  the  industrial  accident  ooard  every 
personal  injury  suffered  by  its  or  his  employees,  arising  out  of  or  in 
the  course  of  the  employment,  and  resulting  in  death  or  in  disability, 
extending  over  a  period  of  a  week  or  more. 

The  number  of  workers  covered  by  this  law  is  estimated  at  498,917, 
there  being  no  census  of  the  workers  yet  taken. 

To  November  1,  1913,  from  January  1,  1913,  there  were  reported 
to  the  Industrial  Accident  Board  9,519  accidents  over  which  said 
board  had  official  cognizance,  distributed  according  to  disability  as 
follows : 

Temporary  disability 8, 476 

Permanent  disability 624 

Deaths 419 


Total 9,519 

Besides  10,196  accidents  in  which  the  disability  was  less  than  one 
week,  or  which  occurred  in  the  exempted  employments. 

In  7,489  of  the  9,519  accidents  the  histories  are  complete.     In 
2,030  cases  the  histories  are  incomplete,  the  disability  not  having 
ended  or  the  settlement  not  having  been  made. 
198 


STATISTICS.  199 

The  7,489  accidents  are  distributed  according  to  disability  as 
follows : 

Temporary  disability 6,  684 

Permanent  disability 467 

Deaths 338 

Total 7,489 

The  provisions  of  chapter  53,  Extra  Session  Laws  of  1911,  provide 
that  supplemental  reports  on  accidents  are  due  to  the  industrial- 
accident  board  upon  termination  of  disability,  or  if  disability  ex- 
tends over  a  period  of  60  days  on  the  sixtieth  day,  and  again  upon 
termination  of  disability. 

It  is  also  provided  that  all  claims  settled  or  pavments  made  to  or 
on  behalf  of  injured  workers  must  be  reported  when  such  payments 
are  made. 

These  two  provisions  so  operate  that  it  is  impossible  to  take  a 
cross-sectional  view  of  the  completed  history  of  all  accidents,  inas- 
much as  at  any  particular  moment  a  large  number  of  accident 
histories  are  incomplete. 

No  cases  are  tabulated  until  the  histories  thereof  are  completed, 
in  order  to  safeguard  the  possible  inclusion  of  accidents  to  which 
official  cognizance  of  the  industrial-accident  board  does  not  extend. 
It  is  reasonably  certain  that  the  averages  of  all  incomplete  accidents 
will  follow  the  averages  of  the  completed  accidents,  with  the  ex- 
ception that  the  periods  of  disability  will  average  greater  and  the 
settlements  proportionately  larger. 

The  number  of  fatal  cases  is  377.     In  125  of  these  cases  no  de- 

Eendents  were  left.  In  212  cases  dependents  were  left,  pensions 
eing  given  in  19  cases,  the  other  settlements  consisting  of  lump-sum 
payments. 

The  provision  that  settlements  are  to  be  made  in  death  cases  only 
to  dependents  operated  in  the  212  cases,  there  being  290  total  de- 
pendents, and  24  partial  dependents,  or  314  dependents  in  all. 

Appended  (Table  No.  1)  is  a  table  showing  the  distribution  of 
death  dependents,  according  to  relationship  of  the  dependents. 

There  are  seven  cases  of  permanent  total  incapacity. 

The  distribution  of  permanent  injuries,  according  to  organic  or 
functional  loss,  constituting  a  permanent  incapacitation  is  given  in 
appended  Table  No.  2. 

The  average  of  permanent  disability  approximates  30  days  in 
those  cases  where  the  employee  ultimately  returns  to  work,  whether 
or  not  he  engaged  in  the  same  occupational  pursuit  after  as  before 
the  injury. 

Ir  those  cases  where  he  does  not  return,  or  in  which  injury  is  of 
sufficient  extent  to  disable  his  working  in  his  former  pursuit,  or  any 
allied  occupation,  a  percentage  disability  rating  of  43.3  per  cent  is 
incurred. 

The  average  for  temporary  injury  with  the  distribution  of  tem- 
porary injuries  by  the  weekly  period  of  disability,  together  with  the 
actual  number  of  days  lost  by  those  temporarily  incapacitated,  is 
given  in  appended  Table  No.  11. 

The  total  amount  of  compensation  paid  is  ascertainable  from  the 
Tables  Nos.  3,  4,  and  5.  These  are  as  follows: 

Table  No.  3,  showing  the  distribution  of  temporary  injuries  accord- 
ing to  the  indemnity  paid  to  those  employees  under  compensation, 


200  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

and  to  those  not  under  compensation,  according  as  to  whether  the 
indemnity  was  paid  by  the  employer  where  no  liability  or  compen- 
sation insurance  was  carried  by  the  employer,  where  such  liability 
or  compensation  insurance  was  carried,  and  by  the  casualty  com- 
pany covering  the  liability  or  compensation  risk  of  the  employers. 

Table  No.  4,  showing  the  distribution  of  permanent  injuries  accord- 
ing to  the  indemnity  paid  to  those  employees  under  compensation, 
and  to  those  not  under  compensation,  according  as  to  whether  the 
indemnity  was  paid  by  the  employer  where  no  liability  or  compensa- 
tion insurance  was  carried  by  the  employer,  where  such  liability  or 
compensation  insurance  was  carried,  and  by  the  casualty  company 
covering  the  liability  or  compensation  risk  of  the  employers. 

Table  No.  5,  showing  the  distribution  of  death  disabilities,  accord- 
ing to  the  indemnity  paid  on  behalf  of  those  employees  under  com- 
pensation, and  on  behalf  of  those  not  under  compensation,  according 
as  to  whether  the  indemnity  was  paid  by  the  employer  where  no 
liability  or  compensation  insurance  was  carried  by  the  employer, 
where  such  liability  or  compensation  insurance  was  carried,  and  by 
the  casualty  company  covering  the  liability  or  compensation  risk  of 
the  employers. 

The  average  weekly  wage  for  all  employees  is  $18.62;  their  average 
age  is  33.96  years. 

Workers  to  the  number  of  2,444  received  $20  and  over  per  week, 
there  being  208  workers  who  received  an  hourly  wage  and  whose 
employment  was  not  continuous.  In  73  instances  the  weekly  wage 
was  not  specified. 

A  complete  distribution  of  the  number  of  workers  injured,  accord- 
ing to  their  weekly  wage,  distributed  by  $10  periods,  appears  as 
Table  No.  6. 

Appended  are  the  following  distributions: 

1.  Marital  condition  and  nativity,  Table  No.  7. 

2.  Cause  of  injuries,  Table  No.  8. 

3.  Nature  of  temporary  injuries,  Table  No.  9. 

4.  Industry  groups,  Table  No.  10. 

The  organization  of  the  statistical  department  is  statistician,  investi- 
gator, chief  clerk,  index  clerk,  stenographer  to  the  statistician,  and 
stenographer  to  the  department. 

The  statistician  is  appointed  by  and  serves  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
board.  All  other  employees  of  the  department  come  under  the  Cali- 
fornia Civil  Service  Commission. 

The  introduction  of  the  Boynton  Act  will  materially  affect  the 
statistical  department  by  increasing  the  scope  of  its  operations,  inas- 
much as  according  to  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  industrial 
accident  commission,  effective  January  1,  1914,  all  accidents  causing 
disability  lasting  through  the  day  of  injury  or  involving  expenditure 
for  medical  aid  will  be  reported. 

The  necessity  under  the  present  law  of  investigating  a  great  many 
accidents  the  disabilities  of  which  are  less  than  one  week,  or  which 
occur  within  the  exempted  industry  classes,  in  order  ultimately  to 
include  all  accidents  to  which  the  official  cognizance  of  the  board 
extends  greatly  intensifies  the  activity  of  the  department,  so  that 
the  totals  submitted  do  not  adequately  represent  the  work  done. 

To  December  1,  1913,  21,854  accidents  were  reported,  of  which 
10,521  will  ultimately  reach  tabulation. 


STATISTICS. 


201 


The  accident  frequency  used  by  the  department  is  the  combined 
European  experience  plus  the  experience  of  the  several  insurance 
companies  in  the  various  States  with  workmen's  collective  insurance 
policies. 

TABLE  1. — Distribution  of  death  dependency  according  to  the  relationship  of  dependents. 


Relationship. 

Number  of 
dependents. 

Total. 

Total. 

Partial. 

Wife 

167 
32 
77 
5 
5 
1 
3 

167 
52 
77 
6 
8 
1 
3 

Parent                     

20 

Child 

Brother                

1 
3 

Sister 

Nephew               

Others 

Total 

290 

24 

314 

TABLE  2. — Distribution  of  permanent  injuries  according  to  organic  or  functional  loss. 

LOSS  OF — 

Thumb. — Right,  loss  of  tip,  6;  loss  at  proximal  joint,  14.     Left,  loss  of  tip,  8;  loss 
at  proximal  joint,  10. 

Index  finger. — Right,  loss  of  tip,  9;  loss  at  middle  joint,  3;  loss  at  proximal  joint,  14; 
Left,  loss  of  tip,  12;  loss  at  middle  joint,  2;  loss  at  proximal  joint,  15. 

Middle  finger. — Right,  loss  of  tip,  16;  loss  at  middle  joint,  2;  loss  at  proximal  joint, 
10.    Left,  loss  of  tip,  10;  loss  at  proximal  joint,  8. 

Ring  finger. — Right,  loss  of  tip,  1;  loss  at  middle  joint,  3;  loss  at  proximal  joint,  5. 
Left,  loss  of  tip,  9;  loss  at  middle  joint,  1;  loss  at  proximal  joint,  6. 

Little  finger. — Right,  loss  of  tip,  6;  loss  at  proximal  joint,  12.    Left,  loss  of  tip,  7; 
loss  at  middle  joint,  1 ;  loss  at  proximal  joint,  10. 

Ends  two  fingers. — Right,  4;  left,  4. 

Parts  of  fingers.— Right,  2;  left,  2. 

Two  fingers.— Right,  8;  left,  6. 

Ends  of  three  fingers. —Right,  1;  left,  3. 

Three  fingers.— Right,  10;  left,  5. 

Four  fingers. — Right,  2;  left,  5. 

Hand  at  wrist. — Right,  1;  left,  5. 

Arm  at  shoulder. — Right,  4. 

Leg  at  hip.— Right,  4;  left,  2. 

Leg  at  knee.— Right,  1;  left,  2. 

One  toe. — Any,  18. 

Two  toes.— Lett,  3. 

Three  toes.— Right,  1. 

Four  toes. — Right,  1. 

Five  toes— Lett,  1. 

Testicles,  1. 

?. — Organic,  right,  15;  left,  15. 
?. — Functional,  right,  4;  left,  2. 
5  and  defective  hearing,  1. 
*e  and  impairment  of  sight  of  other,  1. 
. — One  ear,  1. 


ieanng 
Teeth. — Consequent  malnutrition,  1. 


OTHERS. 


Impairment  of  function  of  eye.— Right,  3;  left,  4;  of  both  eyes,  2. 

Growth  on  breast,  1. 

Strained  muscles. — Functional  impairment,  2. 

Internal,  1. 

Spine. — Injury,  2. 

Paralysis. — Local,  6. 


202 


WOKKMEN  S    COMPENSATION. 


Stiffness  of  hand.— Lett,  3. 

Stiffness  of  one  finger. —Right,  3. 

Stiffness  of  knee.— Left,  4. 

Loss  control  of  arm. — Left,  1. 

Derangements  of  mind,  2. 

Stiffness  ofarm.—Leit,  2. 

Number  ulna  nerve. — Right,  1. 

Stiff  leg—  Right,  4. 

Defective  hearing,  2. 

Ruptures,  71. 

Intelligence  affected,  2. 

Floating  cartilage. — Knee,  1. 

Crushed  foot,  1. 

Permanent  injury  to  feet,  2. 

Nervous  shock,  1. 

Permanent  injury  to  hip. — Right,  2. 

Chronic  weakness,  1. 

Abscess  on  body,  1. 

Stiffness  of  two  fingers,  1. 

Impaired  function  of  hand,  1. 

Facial  disfigurement,  1. 

^4rm  permanently  weak,  1. 

/SK<7fa  Zmp,  1. 

Stiff  toe,  1. 

Total  permanent  injuries,  467. 

TABLE  No.  3. — Distribution  of  temporary  injuries  by  number  of  cases  in  which  indemnity 
was  paid  and  by  amount  of  indemnity  received  by  the  injured  workmen. 


Number. 

Amount  of 
indemnity. 

772 

$37,775  78 

60 

134 
84 

4,087,36 

132 

4,  268.  57 

1,253 

81,904.27 

2  188 

690 

55,348.94 

1,503 

180 

12,  558.  80 

Cases  under  compensation,  when  no  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements 
by  the  employers: 

Cases  settled 

Cases  not  settled 

Cases  under  compensation  when  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements  by 
the  insurance  companies: 

Cases  settled 

Cases  not  settled 

Cases  under  compensation  when  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements  by 
the  employers: 

Cases  settled , 

Cases  not  under  compensation  when  no  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settle- 
ments by  the  employers: 

Cases  settled 

Cases  not  settled , 

Cases  not  under  compensation  when  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements 
by  the  insurance  companies: 

Cases  settled 

Cases  not  settled 

Cases  not  under  compensation  when  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements 
by  the  employers: 
Cases  settled 


RECAPITULATION. 


Under 
compensa- 
tion. 

Not  under 
compensa- 
tion. 

Number  of  cases  in  which  no  settlement  was  made                

60 

3,511 

Number  of  cases  in  which  settlement  was  made                                            

990 

2,123 

Total  indemnity                                 

$46.  131.  71 

$149,812.01 

Average  indemnity  per  settlement                                                   

$46.  60 

$70.  56 

$43.  93 

$26.59 

STATISTICS. 


203 


TABLE  No.  4. — Distribution  of  permanent  injuries  by  number  of  cases  in  which  indem- 
nity was  paid  and  by  amount  of  indemnity  received  by  the  injured  workers. 


iber. 

Amount  of 
indemnity. 

»57 
9 

1$6,006.64 

3 
5 

207.00 

1 

»145 
81 

78.64 
'40,986.87 

50 
117 

9,185.80 

15 

271.  75 

Cases  under  compensation  where  no  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements 
by  the  employers: 

Cases  settled 

Cases  not  settled 

Cases  under  compensation  when  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements  by 
the  insurance  companies: 

Cases  settled 

Cases  not  settled 

Cases  under  compensation  when  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements  by 
the  employers: 

Cases  settled 

Cases  not  under  compensation  where  no  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settle- 
ments by  the  employers: 

Cases  settled 

Cases  not  settled 

Cases  not  under  compensation  where  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements 
by  the  insurance  companies: 

Cases  settled 

Cases  not  settled 

Cases  not  under  compensation  where  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements 
by  the  employers: 
Cases  settled 


1  (  A^)  =S4S0'  care  but  not  indemnity  included. 

L)  ( AT) ~$480'  care  but  not  indemnity  Deluded. 

(2)  (Air)  ~$720)  care  but  not  indemnltv  included. 

(3)<  ^  Ai?^  =$600,  care  but  not  indemnity  included. 

RECAPITULATION. 


unaer  com- 
pensation. 

compen- 
sation. 

Number  of  cases  in  which  no  settlement  was  made  

14 

198 

Number  of  cases  in  which  settlement  was  made  

61 

210 

Pensions  

1 

3 

Total  indemnity  (pension  not  included)  

$6,292.28 

$50,  444.  42 

Average  indemnity  per  settlement 

$104.  87 

$243.  69 

Average  indemnity  per  case  

$186.  20 

$129.  35 

Not  under 


TABLE  No.  5. — Distribution  of  death  disabilities  by  number  of  cases  in  which  indemnity 
was  paid  and  by  amount  of  indemnity  received  by  the  dependents  of  the  injured  workers. 


Number. 

Amount  of 
settlement. 

Cases  under  compensation  where  no  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements 
by  the  employers: 
Cases  settled  

1  $11,564.68 

Cases  not  settled  

10 

Cases  under  compensation  where  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements  by 
the  insurance  companies: 
Cases  not  settled.  

13 

Cases  not  under  compensation  where  no  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settle- 
ments by  the  employers: 
Cases  settled  

45 

65  463  91 

Cases  not  settled  

149 

Cases  not  under  compensation  where  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements 
by  the  insurance  companies: 
Cases  settled  

19 

33,307.52 

Cases  not  settled  

95 

Cases  not  under  compensation  where  liability  insurance  was  carried,  settlements 
by  the  employers: 
Cases  settled  

1 

3,000  00 

'(I)     $900  (A  H) 
(2)  $1,430  (A  H) 
(3)  $1,215  (A  5?) 

204 


WORKMEN  S    COMPENSATION. 


TABLE  No.  5. — Distribution  of  death  disabilities  by  number  of  cases  in  which  indemnity 
was  paid  and  by  amount  of  indemnity  received  by  the  dependents  of  the  injured  workers — 
Continued. 

RECAPITULATION. 


Under  com- 
pensation. 

Not  under 
compensa- 
tion. 

Number  of  cases  in  which  no  settlement  was  made 

23 

243 

Number  of  cases  in  which  settlement  was  made  .        .  .           .         

7 

65 

Pensions 

3 

Total  indemnity  (peTisinns  not  innHifle'1).  ,, 

$11,564.68 

$101,771.43 

Average  indemnity  per  settlement  ..                                              

$2,891.17 

$1,565.71 

Average  indeninity  pe-r  f-as6 

$428.32 

$330.43 

TABLE  No.  6. — Distribution  of  the  number  of  workers  according  to  their  weekly  wage, 

classified  in  $10  periods. 

From  $0  to  $9.99..                                                                                                  ...  431 

From  $10  to  $19.99 4,  333 

From  $20  to  $29.99 1,  962 

From  $30  to  $39.99 407 

From  $40  to  $49.99 57 

From  $50  to  $59.99 10 

From  $60  to  $69.99 5 

From  $70  to  $74.99 

$75  and  over 1 

Hourly 208 

Not  specified 

Total 1 7,489 

TABLE  No.  7. — Distribution  of  all  injuries  distributed  by  marital  condition  and  nativity 

of  injured  workers. 


Married. 

Single. 

Un- 
known. 

Not  speci- 
fied. 

Total. 

Americans 

2,149 

2,057 

135 

28 

4,369 

Foreigners        1  

1,221 

1,402 

105 

20 

2,748 

Unknown 

116 

155 

46 

4 

321 

Not  specified 

27 

15 

0 

9 

51 

Total 

3,513 

3,629 

286 

61 

7,489 

TABLE  No.  8. — Distribution  by  character  of  disability  of  the  causes  of  accidents. 


Cause. 

Tempo- 
rary dis- 
ability. 

Perma- 
nent dis- 
ability. 

Death. 

Total. 

Machinery  and  its  parts: 
1.  Motors  and  engines  

147 

21 

2 

170 

2.  Shafting  and  conveyors.  .  »                              

36 

1 

3 

40 

3.  Gearing 

37 

14 

1 

52 

4.  Belts,  lines,  and  pulleys  

164 

26 

7 

197 

5   Drills  punches  and  dies 

65 

30 

95 

6.  Emery-wheels 

31 

1 

32 

26 

22 

1 

49 

8.  Lathers  and  shapers 

24 

6 

1 

31 

9.  Planers,  veneerers,  and  sanders 

21 

12 

33 

10   Presses 

23 

4 

27 

11.  Feed  rolls  . 

54 

7 

2 

63 

12.  Saws 

84 

35 

4 

123 

13.  Set  screws 

17 

17 

14.  Cogs  

19 

19 

15.  Allother 

77 

3 

1 

81 

16   Without  mechanical  po'ver 

55 

55 

Hoisting  apparatus: 
1.  Elevation                                                 

64 

6 

5 

75 

2.  Other  hoisting  apparatus  .  .  . 

96 

6 

2 

104 

STATISTICS.  205 

TABLE  No.  8. — Distribution  by  character  of  disability  of  the  causes  of  accidents — Contd. 


Cause. 


Tempo- 
rary dis- 
ability. 


Perma- 
nent dis- 
ability. 


Death. 


Total. 


115 
155 
187 
277 


Dangerous  substances: 

1.  Steam  escapes 

2.  Electric  currents 

3.  Explosions 

4.  Hot,  corrosive,  and  inflammable  substances 

5.  Slivers,  thorns,  and  protruding  nails 

Falling,  rolling,  and  flying  objects: 

1.  Flying  fragments 156               25 

2.  Cave-ins  and  rolling  stones 218 

3.  Rolling  and  falling  objects 510               37 

4.  Moving  and  handling  objects  in  shops 325               32 

5.  Loading  and  unloading 829               38 

6.  Falling  piles  and  stacks 34 

7.  Collapse  of  buildings 19 

Tools 457  I             30 

Teaming  and  hauling: 

1.  Runaways 23                 0 

2.  Animals 93                 1 

Collisions,  etc.: 

1.  Collisions,  derailments,  etc 210 

2.  Run  over  by  train  or  vehicle 74                3 

3.  Hit  by  train  or  vehicle 91                4 

4.  Coupling  cars  or  trucks 45 

5.  Jammed  between  objects Ill                7 

Falls: 

1.  From  trains  or  vehicles 162                5 

2.  From  trains  or  vehicles  due  to  sudden  start  or  stop 54                0 

3.  From  trains  or  vehicles  while  alighting  or  boarding 157                1 

4.  From  collapse  of  scaffolds  and  staging 125                2 

5.  From  elevations 295               11 

6.  Fromladders 100                0 

7.  From  animals 11                 0 

8.  From  slipping 363               16 

9.  From  tripping 29                2 

10.  From  tool  slipping 45                6 

11.  From  clothes  catching 8                0 

12.  Into  openings,  trenches,  and  pits 71                0 

13.  Into  elevator  shafts 14                0 

14.  On  stairways 26                 0 

All  other  causes: 

1.  Various 151                 8 

2.  Specific  cause  unknown 24                5 

Total...  6,684              467 


143 

209 
191 
278 

181 
237 
585 
358 
876 
35 
25 
488 

28 


256 
89 

115 
57 

121 

172 

56 

162 

128 

335 

101 

11 

385 

31 

51 

8 

79 

18 

26 

176 
35 


7,489 


TABLE  No.  9. — Distribution  of  temporary  injuries  by  nature  of  injury. 


Injuries. 


Number. 


Bruises,  contusions,  and  abrasions 

Cuts  and  lacerations 

Dislocations,  sprains,  and  strains 

Fractures 

Burns  and  scalds 

Mashes  and  crushes  with  no  permanent  injury. 

Infections 

Injuries  to  eyes 

Puncture  wounds 

Internal 

Ruptures,  slight 

Specific  injury  unknown 

All  others 


Total. 


2,191 

1,168 

1,040 

982 

409 

250 

207 

166 

142 

58 

4 

10 
57 

6,684 


206 


WORKMEN  S    COMPENSATION. 
TABLE  No.  10. 


Indemnity. 

Under  law. 

Not  under  law. 

Total. 

Tem- 
porary 
disa- 
bility. 

Perma- 
nent 
disa- 
bility. 

Death. 

Total. 

Tem- 
porary 
disa- 
bility. 

Perma- 
nent 
disa- 
bility. 

Death. 

Total. 

Brick,  tile,  and  pottery  

15 
99 
5 
48 
15 
94 
247 
34 
311 
16 
98 
4 
4 
2 
3 
7 
41 
4 
3 

1 

5 
2 
3 
2 
12 
18 
1 
17 
4 
3 

16 
109 
8 
53 
18 
108 
276 
37 
329 
20 
104 
5 
5 
2 
5 
7 
44 
4 
4 

23 
639 

43 
3 
25 
1 
66 
24 
40 
24 
8 
14 
1 
9 
16 
27 
63 
14 

3 
48 
3 
11 
2 
41 
23 
21 
5 
2 
21 
2 
15 
5 
6 
60 
21 
12 
7 

27 
730 
6 
397 
23 
749 
333 
423 
292 
56 
378 
22 
120 
74 
182 
1,917 
327 
149 
130 

43 

839 
14 
450 
41 
857 
609 
460 
621 
76 
482 
27 
125 
76 
187 
1,924 
371 
153 
134 

Construction  

5 
1 
2 

2 
11 

2 

1 

Explosives 

Foodstuffs  

361 
20 

642 
286 
362 
263 
46 
343 
19 
96 
53 
149 
1.794 
292 
137 
109 

Laundries  .           ... 

Lumber 

Mines     

Metals  and  machinery 

Oil  

Paper  and  printing  . 

Power  and  light 

3 

1 

Textiles  

Quarries 

1 

Other  manufacturing 

Mercantile  

2 

Railroads 

Other  transportation  

2 

1 

Public  corporations  

All  others 

1 

14 

Total 

1,050 

74 

30 

1,154 

5,634 

393 

308 

6,335 

7,489 

TABLE  No.  11. — Distribution  of  temporary  injuries  by  periods  of  disability . 


Weekly 
period. 

Accidents. 

Days. 

Per  cent 
of  cases. 

1-  2 

2,409 

26,401 

36.04 

2-  3 

1,269 

22,  626 

18.98 

3-  4 

734 

19,647 

10.98 

4-5 

500 

15,834 

7.48 

5-  6 

323 

12,536 

4.83 

6-  7 

282 

11,066 

4.22 

7-  8 

163 

8,635 

2.44 

8-  9 

126 

8,660 

1.89 

9-10 

78 

5,235 

1.17 

10-11 

57 

4,236 

.85 

11-12 

54 

4,373 

.81 

12-13 

44 

3,871 

.66 

13-14 

29 

2,752 

.43 

14-15 

15 

1,522 

.22 

15-16 

7 

767 

.10 

16-17 

12 

1,393 

.18 

17-18 

7 

849 

.10 

18-19 

8 

910 

.12 

19-20 

7 

1,015 

.10 

20-21 

6 

871 

.09 

21-22 

5 

755 

.07 

22-23 

3 

479 

.04 

23-24 

3 

496 

.04 

24-25 

25-26 

1 

176 

.01 

26-27 

1 

188 

.01 

27-28 

2 

386 

.03 

28-29 

1 

197 

.01 

29-30 
30-31 

1 

205 

.01 

31-32 

32-33 

33-34 

34-35 
35-36 

3 

698 

.04 

36-37 

37-38 

38-39 

39-40 

40-41 

41  42 

42-43 

43-44 

1 

306 

.01 

533 

7.97 

Total. 

6,684 

157,085 

Average  disability,  23.50  days. 


STATISTICS.  207 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  requests  for  arbitration 
and  their  disposition: 

Total  number  of  requests  for  arbitration  from  July  1,  1912,  to  Nov.  30,  1913, 

inclusive 584 

Total  number  of  cases  heard  by  committees  of  arbitration 349 

Total  number  of  cases  in  which  arbitration  was  requested  which  were  settled 

without  a  formal  hearing 182 

Total  number  of  cases  pending 53 

Total  number  of  cases  heard  by  the  board  on  review  under  section  7,  Part  III..  56 

Total  number  of  cases  heard  by  the  board  on  review  under  section  12,  Part  III.  6 

Total  number  of  cases  appealed  to  the  supreme  judicial  court 26 

About  3,000  claims,  regarding  which  there  was  some  dispute,  were  adjusted  by  the 
mediation  of  members  of  the  board  by  conference  with  employees  and  insurers. 

During  the  first  12  months  of  the  act  there  were  reported  to  the 
industrial  accident  board  89,694  nonfatal  accidents. 

Four  hundred  and  seventy-four  persons  engaged  in  occupations  in 
Massachusetts  were  killed  as  a  result  of  injuries  arising  out  of  and  in 
the  course  of  their  employment. 

Seventy-one  more  fatalities  were  reported  to  the  industrial  accident 
board,  which  were  found  on  investigation  not  to  arise  out  of  or  in 
the  course  of  employment,  or  subject  to  the  workings  of  the  compensa- 
tion act. 

Of  the  474  fatally,  injured  persons  to  whom  the  act  was  applicable, 
290  were  under  compensation  and  184  were  not. 

In  112  of  the  cases  no  dependents  were  left.  In  the  remaining 
362  cases  there  were  873  dependents,  of  whom  770  were  wholly 
dependent  and  103  were  partially  dependent  upon  the  supporting 
member  of  the  family. 

One  hundred  and  sixty-four  of  the  persons  fatally  injured  were 
single,  30  were  widowers,  2  were  divorced,  and  278  were  married. 
These  figures  show  that  in  60  per  cent  of  the  fatal  cases  there  were 
left  widows  in  a  state  of  dependency. 

Of  the  total  number  of  nonfatal  accidents  reported  (89,694)  68,586, 
or  76  per  cent,  were  for  injuries  which  incapacitated  the  employee  for 
two  weeks  or  less;  and  of  these,  36,779,  or  41  per  cent  of  the  total 
accidents  reported,  were  for  injuries  which  incapacitated  the  employee 
but  for  one  day. 

Ten  thousand  five  hundred  and  sixty-eight,  or  12  per  cent,  were  for 
injuries  which  incapacitated  the  employee  for  from  two  to  four  weeks. 

Six  thousand  six  hundred  and  thirty-eight,  or  7  per  cent,  were  for 
injuries  which  incapacitated  the  employee  from  four  to  eight  weeks. 

Two  thousand  three  hundred  and  fifty-five,  or  3  per  cent,  were  for 
injuries  which  incapacitated  the  employee  from  8  to  13  weeks. 

One  thousand  two  hundred  and  seventy-five,  or  1  per  cent,  were  for 
injuries  which  incapacitated  the  employee  from  13  weeks  to  6  months. 

Two  hundred  and  seventy-two,  or  tnree-tenths  of  1  per  cent,  were 
for  injuries  which  incapacitated  the  employee  for  over  six  months. 

The  greatest  number  of  accidents,  as  represented,  occurred  among 
those  between  the  ages  of  21  to  29  years;  the  next  highest  number 
fell  in  the  group  between  30  and  39  years. 


208 
The 


WORKMEN  S   COMPENSATION. 

of  persons  fatally  injured  are  shown  in  the  following  table: 
Ages  of  persons  fatally  injured. 


Aee. 

Number. 

Under  16... 

4 

16-20 

18 

60  and  over  
50-59  

55 
66 

40-49 

83 

30-39  

113 

21-29  

135 

474 

As  in  nonfatal  cases,  the  number  of  fatalities  was  heaviest  among 
those  between  21  and  39  years.  The  number  of  persons  in  these  two 
groups  comprised  over  50  per  cent  of  the  total. 

In  112  of  the  cases  no  dependents  were  left;  the  balance  of  362 
fatalities  resulted  in  873  cases  of  dependency  either  in  whole  or  in 
part. 

The  amount  of  compensation  paid  and  due  under  the  act,  from 
July  1,  1912,  to  June  30,  1913,  amounted  to  $1,677,380.82.  Fifty-one 
per  cent  was  compensation  for  nonfatal  injuries;  24  per  cent  went  to 
the  payment  of  medical  and  hospital  expenses;  and  23  per  cent  was 
paid  for  fatal  injuries. 

The  following  table  shows  the  wages  received  by  those  who  were 
fatally  injured: 

Wages  of  those  fatally  injured. 


Wages 

Number 
of  cases. 

$8  and  under  
$15  and  under  
$20  and  under  
Over  $20  

27 
288 
102 
57 

In  connection  with  these  figures,  as  well  as  with  those  covering 
nonfatal  injuries,  it  is  of  interest  to  note  that  accidents  occur  more 
frequently  among  persons  who  receive  a  wage  approaching  $15  per 
weelk,  and  also  among  those  who  receive  between  $15  and  $20  per 
week. 

Of  the  474  fatal  fases,  four  of  the  injured  persons  were  paid  on  a 
piece-rate  basis. 

Causes  of  accide  U — Nonfatal  accidents. — Twenty-eight  thousand 
nine  hundred  and  sixty-three  nonfatal  accidents,  or  32  per  cent  of 
the  total  number,  were  caused  by  hand  labor;  11,000,  or  12  per  cent, 
were  caused  by  machinery  peculiar  to  special  industries;  8,139,  or 
9  per  cent,  were  the  result  of  falls  of  various  kinds;  4,305,  or  4  per 
cent,  were  eye  injuries;  99,  or  one-tenth  of  1  per  cent,  were  occupa- 
tional diseases. 


STATISTICS. 


209 


The  following  table  shows  the  causes  of  fatal  accidents  arranged  in 
the  order  of  their  magnitude : 

Fatal  accidents. 

Railroad  eq  uipment 119 

Falls 66 

Vehicles 43 

Hand  labor 37 

Elevators 33 

Electricity 25 

Street  railways 20 

Boiler  explosions  and  burns 15 

Excavating -14 

Cranes 11 

Miscellaneous — unclassified 11 

Asphyxiation,  drowning,  etc 10 

Animals,  insects,  etc 9 

Shafting,  set  screws,  etc 9 

Falling  material  from  overhead 8 

Machinery  peculiar  to  special  industries 7 

Belting 6 

Infection  from  trivial  cuts,  burns,  etc 5 

Saws - - 4 

Explosions  (not  boiler) 4 

Hoists 4 

Illness.... 3 

Presses 2 

Gears -.  2 

Emery  wheels 2 

Occupational  diseases 2 

Glass 1 

"Wood  molders 1 

Assault  and  fighting 1 

Total 474 

As  shown  above,  the  heaviest  causes  of  fatal  accidents  were  due  to 
railroad  equipment,  falls,  vehicles,  hand  labor,  elevators,  electricity, 
and  street  railways. 

By  grouping  these  figures  into  the  three  classifications  made  for  non- 
fatal  accidents — hand  labor,  machinery,  and  miscellaneous  causes — 
the  following  results  are  found : 

Seventy-three  per  cent  of  the  fatalities  were  due  to  miscellaneous 
causes.  Of  these  causes  about  25  per  cent  were  contributed  by  rail- 
road equipment,  and  13  per  cent  by  falls. 

Nineteen  per  cent  of  the  fatalities  were  caused  by  machinery. 

Eight  per  cent  were  caused  by  hand  labor. 

Number  of  accidents  per  1,000  employees  for  25  selected  branches  of  industry. 


Industry. 


Number. 


Automobile  factories 

Electrical  supplies 

Foundries  and  metal  working.. 
Slaughter  and  packing  houses . . 

Box  makers  (wood) 

Car  and  railroad  shops 

Rubber  factories 

Printing  and  publishing 

Bakeries 

Pianos  and  organs 

Furniture 

Paper  and  pulp  mills 

Tanneries 


213 
202 
182 
157 
139 
133 
119 
105 


Industry. 


Cotton  mills 

Jewelry  factories 

Box  makers  (paper) 

Woolen  and  worsted  mills 

Candy 

Carpet  mills 

Knitting  mills 

shoes ''.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'.\'".'. 

Marble  and  stone  cutters 

Dyeing  and  finishing  textiles 

Makers  of  blank  books,  envelopes,  tags, 

etc 

Clothing  makers 


Number. 


General  average  for  group,  91  accidents  per  1,000  employees. 
30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2-^14 


210  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Incidence  of  fatal  accidents,  by  industries,  for  year  ending  July  1,  1913. 


Industry. 


Number. 


Industry. 


Number. 


Road,  street,  and  bridge  transportation. 

Building  trades 

Trade 

Miscellaneous  industries 

Textiles 

Iron  and  steel 

Water  transportation 

Food  and  kindred  products 

Lumber  and  its  manufactures 

Leather  and  its  finished  products 

Domestic  and  personal  service 

Beverages  and  liquors 


183 
71 
42 
31 
25 
24 
21 
10 
9 


Agriculture  and  forestry 

Forestry 

Paper 

Chemical  products 

Metal  and  metal  products 

Extraction  of  minerals 

Clay,  glass,  and  stone  products. 

Express  companies 

Post,  telegraph,  and  telephone . 

Professional  service 

Printing  and  bookbinding 


Total  number  of  additional  injuries  for  which  specific  payments  are  to  be  made,  and  the 
estimated  amount  due  in  cases  covered  by  insurance. 

•""Insured"  means  covered  by  compensation  act.] 


Insured. 


Not  in- 
sured. 


Total. 


Amount 
due. 


Bothfeetlost 1  1 

Botheyeslost 1 i  $700 

Oneeyelost 43  4  47  15,050 

One  hand  lost 27  8  36  9,450 

Onefootlost 14  8  22  4,900 

Two  or  more  fingers  lost 128  5  133  22,400 

Two  or  more  toes  lost 17  4  21  2, 975 

Onefingerlost 587  85  672  49,308 

Onetoelost 31  3  34  2,604 

Total SIS  118  966         107,387 

j ! 

MICHIGAN. 

Employers  operating  under  act 10,  760 

Employees  covered  by  provisions  of  act 475,  408 

Total  number  of  accidents  reported 21, 172 

Males  injured 20,  822 

Females  injured '. 350 

ACCIDENTS  CLASSIFIED. 

Fatalities 495  i  Less  than  eight  weeks 11,415 

Amputations 2,112  I  Eight  weeks  or  more 7,150 

EMPLOYERS  CLASSIFIED  AS  TO  METHOD   OF  CARRYING  RISK. 

Liability  insurance 9,  562  Arbitrations 266 

State  insurance 368  Appealed  to  board 61 

Own  risk 617  Appealed  to  supreme  court 10 

Mutual  insurance 213 

FIRST  SIX  MONTHS'  EXPERIENCE  UNDER  MICHIGAN  ACT. 

Ratio  of  accidents  to  total  number  of  employees  under  act 0.  0258 

Ratio  of  fatal  accidents 0005 

Ratio  of  amputations 0030 

Ratio  of  major  injuries 0095 

Ratio  of  minor  injuries 0127 

Percentage  of  fatal  accidents 0215 

Percentage  of  amputations 1178 

Percentage  of  major  injuries 3700 

Percentage  of  minor  injuries 4904 


STATISTICS. 


211 


EXPERIENCE  OF  SIX  EMPLOYERS,  ONE  FROM  EACH  INDUSTRY— FIRST  SIX  MONTHS 
OF  OPERATION  UNDER  MICHIGAN  LAW. 


Nature  of  business. 


Number  of 
employees. 


Number  of  acci- 
dents. 


Fatal. 


Non- 


Percentage. 


Non- 
fatal. 


Fatal. 


Compen- 
sation 
paid. 


Medical 
and  hos- 
pital at- 
tention. 


Mining 

Chemical.... 
Automobiles. 
Foundry 
Machinery . . , 
Rubber 


2.710 
1,800 
6,713 
2,500 
3,072 
2,500 


254 
578 
1,725 
474 
145 
576 


0.0937 
.32 
.256 
.19 
.046 
.23 


0.00037 
.0011 

.0002 


$2, 154. 06 
2,301.01 
9,448.63 


0) 
1,015.75 


$1,626.00 
2,730.00 

742. 74 
1,187.15 

447.05 
1,299.09 


Total 19,295  5          3,752    15,588.55          8,032.03 

1  Total  amount  of  compensation  paid  not  given. 

Average  percentage  nonfatal  accidents  to  number  of  employees 0. 18927 

Average  percentage  of  fatal  accidents  to  number  of  employees 0. 00038 

Average  cost  of  compensation  per  employee $0. 96 

Average  cost  of  medical  and  hospital  attention  per  employee SO.  42 

Average  cost  of  compensation  per  total  number  of  accidents $4.12 

Average  cost  of  medical  attention  total  number  of  accidents $2. 11 

Average  cost  per  man  injured  of  medical  and  hospital  attention  and  compensation $6. 23 

Total  cost  of  compensation  and  medical  and  hospital  attention  of  3,757  accidents  to  6  em- 
ployers   $23,620.58 

OHIO. 

[As  of  Nov.  15, 1913.] 

Number  of  risks 2, 711 

Number  of  workmen  covered 171, 113 

Number  of  accidents  reported 14, 139 

Number  entitled  to  compensation 5, 115 

Number  of  fatal  cases 48 

Number  leaving  dependents: 

Cases  passed  on 34 

Disallowed 3 

Dismissed  and  dependency  in  the  remaining  29  cases 2 

Number  of  cases  of  permanent  total  disability 2 

Number  losing  hands 2 

Number  losing  arms 3 

Number  losing  feet 0 

Number  losing  legs 0 

Average  length  of  disability  (cases  only  where  compensation  award) ...  8£  weeks. 

Number  disabled  more  than  one  week  and  less  than  two  weeks 1, 128 

Number  of  appeals  to  court 1 

Total  amount  of  compensation  paid  (includes  medical,  hospital,  funeral, 

etc.,  also  deferred  awards  and  unspttled  claims^ $444,837.23 

Total  paid  in  death  cases $76,  338.  97 

Total  paid  for  lost  hands $2,790.00 

Total  paid  for  lost  arms $5,  367.  06 

Total  paid  for  lost  feet 0 

Total  paid  for  lost  legs 0 

Average  amount  paid  weekly $8.  94 

Total  number  whose  average  wage  exceeded  $18 963 

Average  length  of  time  between  accident  and  commencement  of  weekly  payments, 
29  days. 

(Application  for  award  not  to  be  made  until  two  weeks  after  the  occurrence  of  the 
injury.) 


212 


WORKMEN  S    COMPENSATION. 


WASHINGTON. 

[Year  from  Oct.  1, 1912,  to  Oct.  1, 1913.] 

Number  eligible?    All  extra  hazardous  employments. 

Number  of  accidents  (nonfatal)?    12,380  excluding  fatal  and  trivial  cases. 

Number  entitled  to  compensation?    12,380. 

Number  of  fatal  cases?    Requiring  pension,  173;  requiring  no  pension,  156. 

Number  of  cases  of  permanent  total  incapacity?    13. 

Number  losing  hands?    12. 

Number  losing  arms?    13. 

Number  losing  feet?    8. 

Number  losing  legs?    10  plus  10  amputated  thighs. 

Average  length  of  disability?    275  days  excluding  Sundays. 

Total  amount  of  compensation  paid?    $1,377,271.09  (all  awards). 

Total  paid  in  death  cases?    $453,  302.68. 

Total  paid  for  lost  hands?    $13,937.50. 

Total  paid  for  lost  arms?    $20,025. 

Total  paid  for  lost  faet?    $10,225. 

Total  paid  for  lost  legs?    $30,000. 

Average  amount  paid  weekly?    $1.35  per  day  for  temporary  total  disability. 

(Average  daily  wage  of  injured  persons,  $3.05.) 

Temporary  total  disabilities  classified  according  to  weeks  duration,  from  Oct.  1,  1912,  to 

Oct.  1,  1918. 


Duration  of  disability 


Number  of     Per  cent 


Not  more  than  1  week 1,681 

From  1  to  2  weeks 3, 157 

From  2  to  3  weeks 2,113 

From  3  to  4  weeks 1,365 

From  4  to  5  weeks 1,139 

From  5  to  6  weeks 658 

From  6  to  7  weeks 439 

From  7  to  8  weeks 281 

From  8  to  9  weeks 330 

From  9  to  10  weeks 160 

From  10  to  11  weeks 

From  11  to  12  weeks 100 

From  12  to  13  weeks _ 131 

From  13  to  14  weeks ., 

From  14  to  15  weeks 65 

From  15  to  16  weeks 

From  16  to  17  weeks 

From  17  to  18  weeks 93 

From  1 8  to  19  weeks 

From  19  to  20  weeks 36 

From  20  to  21  weeks 

From  21  to  22  weeks 

From  22  to  23  weeks 23 

From  23  to  24  weeks 

From  24  to  25  weeks 10 

From  25  to  26  weeks 

More  than  26  weeks 172 

Total..  12,380 


13.6 

25.5 

17.1 

11.0 

9.2 

5.3 

3.5 

2.3 

2.7 

1.3 

1.1 

.8 

1.1 

.4 

.5 

.3 

.2 

.8 

.1 

.3 

.2 

.6 

.2 

.1 

.1 

.3 

1.4 


100.0 


NO  8.  ITINERARY  OF  COMMISSION  AND  NAMES  OF  PUBLIC  OFFI- 
CIALS, EMPLOYERS,  AND  LABOR  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Beginning  in  the  last  week  of  July,  the  inquiry  was  conducted 
without  intermission  until  toward  the  end  of  December. 

Messrs.  Phillips,  Mitchell,  and  Lord,  representing  the  commission, 
held  its  first  series  of  conferences  in  Boston.  On  August  4  a  day 
was  spent  with  the  Massachusetts  industrial  accident  board,  the 
full  State  commission  being  present,  viz,  James  B.  Carroll,  chairman; 
Robert  E.  Grandfield,  secretary;  and  Dudley  M.  Holman,  David  T. 
Dickinson,  Edward  F.  McSweeney,  and  Joseph  A.  Parks.  In  Bos- 
ton the  commission  members  also  conferred  with  Mathias  J.  Nesdale, 
business  agent  of  the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Street  Railway 
Employees,  and  with  a  committee  delegated  by  the  Boston  Central 
Labor  Union  for  the  purpose,  consisting  of  Henry  Sterling,  chair- 
man of  the  State  Labor  Federation's  legislative  committee;  Arthur 
M.  Huddell,  president  of  the  Hoisting  and  Portable  Engineers' 
Union  of  Boston;  Louis  R.  Sullivan,  of  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant 
Employees'  Organization,  and  A.  C.  Langlois,  of  the  Metal  Polishers 
and  Buffers'  Union. 

On  August  11  the  next  conference  was  held  at  the  office  of  the 
Michigan  industrial  accident  board  at  Lansing.  Besides  Messrs. 
Phillips,  Mitchell,  and  Lord,  of  the  commission,  the  participants  in 
the  proceedings  were  John  E.  Kinnane,  chairman,  and  Ora  E.  Reaves, 
member  of  the  board;  John  T.  Winship,  commissioner  of  insurance; 
and  Robert  K.  Orr,  assistant  to  the  commissioner  and  manager  of 
the  accident  fund;  and  J.  M.  Eaton,  director  of  the  accident  preven- 
tion and  relief  organization  of  the  Cadillac  Motor  Car  Co.,  while 
among  the  representatives  of  labor  were  Claude  O.  Taylor,  president, 
and  Homer  R.  Waterman,  secretary,  of  the  State  Federation  of  Labor; 
and  Joseph  Smith,  Michigan  district  president  of  the  Miners'  Union; 
also  E.  C.  Shields,  attorney;  and  James  Cunningham,  labor  com- 
missioner. 

The  next  morning,  August  12,  the  three  members  of  the  com- 
mission met  in  Detroit,  J.  M.  Eaton,  of  the  Cadillac  Motor  Car  Co., 
and  Leslie  B.  Robertson,  general  counsel  for  the  Ford  Motor  Co.,  who 
explained  in  detail  the  operation  of  the  compensation  act  in  respect 
to  the  two  plants  which  they  represented.  In  the  afternoon  a  con- 
ference was  held  at  the  headquarters  of  the  Federation  of  Labor,  the 
following  trade-union  officials  being  present:  Harry  Colwell,  business 
agent,  and  Guy  Smith,  national  officer,  of  the  Carpenters  and  Joiners' 
Union;  J.  E.  McGlory  and  Samuel  Tobin,  Structural  Iron  Workers; 
Edward  Francis,  of  the  Building  Trades  Council;  Henry  Kummer- 
feld,  president  of  the  Detroit  Federation  of  Labor;  Stanley  Ander- 
son, president,  and  William  Stitson,  of  the  Detroit  local  union  of  the 
Street  Railway  Employees;  Garrett  F.  Burns,  of  the  Amalgamated 
Association  of  Street  Railway  Employees;  Frank  X.  Martel,  of  the 
Typographical  Union;  John  Gannon,  of  the  Brewers'  Association; 

213 


214  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Messrs.  Sauter,  of  the  Beer  Bottlers,  and  H.  L.  Hunt,  of  the  Electrical 
Linemen,  and  several  others  whose  names  could  not  be  obtained. 

In  the  evening  during  a  meeting  at  which  insurance  questions  in- 
volved in  compensation  were  discussed  the  following  persons  were 
present:  F.  A.  Brown,  of  the  Ocean  Accident  Guarantee  Corpora- 
tion; Frank  Eaman,  of  Bowen,  Douglass,  Eaman  &  Barbour;  C.  M. 
Young,  William  M.  Brown,  and  Floyd  N.  Dull,  special  agents  of  the 
Travelers  Insurance  Co. ;  Fred  L.  Witmire,  attorney  of  the  Employers' 
Liability  Assurance  Corporation;  T.  Cotter,  of  the  London  Guarantee 
&  Accident  Co.;  Ora  E.  Reaves,  member  of  the  industrial  accident 
board,  of  Lansing;  F.  S.  Deneen,  engineer  the  Chalmers  Motor  Co.; 
George  J.  Lieber,  agency  supervisor,  Olen  K.  Underwood,  investi- 
gator, and  Eugene  C.  Marthwet,  of  the  Aetna  Life  Insurance  Co.; 
and  Austin  J.  Spaulding,  attorney  for  the  Fidelity  &  Deposit  Co.  of 
Maryland. 

The  following  morning,  August  13,  the  insurance  features  of  the 
Michigan  act  were  further  stated  at  conferences  held  at  the  offices 
of  the  Travelers  Insurance  Co.  and  the  Aetna  Life  Insurance  Co., 
those  participating  being  Messrs.  Hall,  Fred  L.  Van  Deveer,  attorney 
Travelers  Insurance  Co.;  George  J.  Lieber,  agency  supervisor,  and 
Olen  K.  Underwood,  investigator,  Aetna  Life  Insurance  Co.; 
Eugene  C.  Marthwet  and  J.  Giebel,  insurance  representatives;  and 
Ora  E.  Reaves,  of  the  Michigan  Industrial  Accident  Board. 

On  August  14  at  the  Builders  and  Trades'  Exchange  in  Detroit 
the  operation  of  the  law  as  regards  contractors  and  subcontractors 
was  discussed  with  R.  K.  Logan,  president  the  State  Builders'  As- 
sociation of  Michigan.  An  interview  was  also  had  with  Elmer  H. 
Dearth,  general  manager  of  the  Michigan  Workmen's  Mutual  In- 
surance Co.  of  Detroit. 

In  the  afternoon  at  the  Fellowcraft  Club  a  conference  was  had 
with  A.  A.  Templeton,  of  the  Morgan  &  Wright  Co. ;  H.  W.  Hoyt,  of 
the  Great  Lakes  Engineering  Works;  Robert  McFate,  of  the  Vinton 
Co.;  R.  K.  Logan,  president  the  State  Builders'  Association,  of 
Saginaw,  Mich.;  John  J.  Whirl,  secretary  of  the  Employers'  Asso- 
ciation of  Detroit;  and  Frank  P.  Johnston,  vice  president  the  Detroit 
Screw  Works. 

On  August  15,  in  Columbus,  Ohio,  a  meeting  was  had  with  Wallace 
D.  Yaple,  chairman  of  the  Industrial  Commission  of  Ohio  and  com- 
missioner of  the  State  board  of  arbitration;  and  William  C.  Archer, 
secretary  of  the  industrial  commission.  In  the  afternoon,  at  his 
office  in  Columbus,  Opha  Moore,  secretary  of  the  Ohio  Manufacturers' 
Association,  presented  his  views  as  to  the  operation  of  the  Ohio  law. 

On  August  16,  in  Cleveland,  a  conference  was  held  with  S.  W. 
Tener,  manager  accident  and  pension  department  of  the  American 
Steel  &  Wire  Co. ;  Edward  J.  Hobday,  secretary  Cleveland  Industrial 
Association;  and  Munson  A.  Havens,  secretary  of  the  Cleveland 
Chamber  of  Commerce. 

On  August  18  meetings  followed  in  Cleveland  with  P.  Hassenpflue, 
president  of  the  Cleveland  Federation  of  Labor;  C.  A.  Roberts,  sec- 
retary of  the  Employers'  Association;  William  B.  Stewart,  attorney; 
Frank  Ansell,  assistant  treasurer,  H.  P.  Bingham,  of  the  Bolt  &  Nut 
Co. ;  and  Charles  V.  Lavan,  of  the  State  board  of  awards. 


ITTNEBAKY   OF   COMMISSION.  215 

The  following  day  Messrs.  Phillips,  Lord,  and  Mitchell  had  inter- 
views in  Chicago  with  Glen  W.  Traer,  president  of  the  Coal  Operators' 
Liability  Insurance  Co.;  J.  C.  Adderley,  representing  the  Millers' 
Mutual  and  Printers'  Mutual  Casualty  insurance  Cos.;  F.  J.  Dam- 
mann,  attorney  for  the  Maryland  Casualty  Co.;  John  Fitzpatrick, 
president  the  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor;  and  R.  W.  Campbell, 
chairman,  and  R.  J.  Young,  secretary,  of  the  safety  committee,  the 
Illinois  Steel  Co. 

On  August  21  the  methods  of  its  work  were  studied  at  the  State 
capitol,  Madison,  Wis.,  with  the  industrial  commission,  C.  H.  Crown- 
hart,  cnairman.  August  22  conferences  were  had  at  Milwaukee  with 
Frank  J.  Weber,  corresponding  secretary  of  the  Federation  of  Trades 
Organizations  and  general  organizer  of  tne  State  Federation  of  Labor; 
John  W.  Mapel,  of  the  Foster  &  Vogel  Leather  Co. ;  F.  P.  Blumenf eld, 
president,  William  G.  Bruce,  secretary,  and  Robert  L.  Frost,  as- 
sistant secretary,  of  the  Merchants  &  Manufacturers'  Association; 
W.  J.  Fairbairn,  secretary  of  the  Metal  Trades  Employers'  Association; 
A.  T.  Van  Scoy,  of  the  International  Harvester  Co.;  Eltinge  Elmore, 
retired;  E.  J.  Kearney,  secretary-treasurer  of  the  Kearney  &  Trecker 
Co. ;  and  S.  M.  Cantrovitz,  president- treasurer  of  the  Western  Raw- 
hide &  BeHing  Co. 

On  October  2  the  commission  interviewed  Gen.  Lewis  T.  Bryant, 
commissioner  of  labor,  and  William  E.  Stubbs,  secretary  of  the  New 
Jersey  employers'  liability  commission,  at  Trenton,  in  regard  to  the 
operation  of  the  compensation  act  of  that  State. 

Beginning  November  18,  Messrs.  Phillips  and  Mitchell  had  confer- 
ences ha  Seattle,  Wash.,  with  Charles  R.  Case,  president  of  the  Wash- 
ington Federation  of  Labor  at  the  tune  the  compensation  law  was 
enacted  hi  that  State;  F.  Dabney,  of  the  Puget  Sound  Traction, 
Light  &  Power  Co.,  of  Seattle;  C.  W.  Miles,  manager  the  West 
Coast  Lumber  Manufacturers'  Association,  of  Tacoma ;  and  Hamilton 
Higday,  former  State  industrial  insurance  commissioner.  Edward 
F.  McSweeney,  member  of  the  Massachusetts  industrial  accident 
board,  who  was  authorized  by  the  governor  to  accompany  the  com- 
mission on  its  western  trip,  was  also  present. 

On  the  following  day,  at  the  New  Richmond  Hotel,  Seattle,  a 
trade-union  view  of  compensation  in  California  was  given  by  Paul 
Scharrenberg,  secretary-treasurer  of  the  California  State  Federation 
of  Labor,  appointed  to  meet  the  commission  by  the  California  dele- 
gation attending  the  convention  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
then  in  session  at  Seattle. 

On  November  20,  in  Olympia,  at  the  office  of  the  industrial  insur- 
ance commission  of  Washington,  a  conference  was  had  with  the 
following  members:  John  H.  W"a^aceJ  F.  W.  Hinsdale,  chief  auditor; 
Dr.  J.  W.  Mo  well,  medical  adviser;  and  R.  Adah",  statistician. 

On  November  26,  Messrs.  Phillips  and  Mitchell  conferred  at  the 
Palace  Hotel,  San  Francisco,  with  Messrs.  Fisher,  president  the  Metal 
Trades  Employers'  Association;  and  McGregor,  of  the  Union  Iron 
Works;  Mr.  Fowler;  and  Mr.  Havens,  attorney  for  the  Metal  Trades 
Employers'  Association.  In  the  afternoon  the  commission  met  A.  J. 
Pillsbury,  the  chairman,  Will  J.  French,  and  Harris  Weinstock,  of 
the  industrial  accident  board  of  California. 


216  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 


Questionnaires,  letters,  and  descriptive  circulars  were  sent  to 
employers  in  manufacturing  and  all  types  of  contracting,  street  rail- 
roads, and  other  public  utilities,  such  as  gas  and  electric  light,  and  to 
proprietors  of  mercantile  or  department  stores.  The  lists  were  so 
selected  that  they  covered  all  trades  and  large  as  well  as  small  em- 
ployers, that  every  phase  of  the  matter  might  be  represented. 

Among  the  employers'  associations  other  than  those  elsewhere 
mentioned  which  assisted  in  the  distribution  of  literature  or  furnished 
lists  of  their  members  are:  The  National  Association  of  Box  Manu- 
facturers, Henry  B.  Maxwell,  manager,  Chicago;  the  Stove  Founders' 
National  Defense  Association,  Thomas  J.  Hogan,  secretary,  Chicago; 
the  United  States  Brewers'  Association;  the  Shoe  and  Leather  Asso- 
ciation, Thomas  F.  Anderson,  secretary,  Boston;  the  Builders  and 
Traders'  Exchange,  Charles  A.  Bowen,  secretary,  Detroit;  and  local 
branches  of  such  organizations  as  the  Electrical  Contractors'  Asso- 
ciation, C.  E.  Greenwood,  assistant  secretary,  Boston;  the  National 
Metal  Trades  Association,  Paul  Blatchford,  secretary,  Chicago;  the 
Master  House  Painters;  and  chambers  of  commerce.  The  employer 
members  of  the  National  Civic  Federation  also  were  covered. 

In  some  States  conditions  required  special  lists  to  bring  out  facts 
covering  the  peculiarities  of  the  laws. 

In  California  there  were  secured  lists  of  the  1,100  employers  who 
had  accepted  the  elective  act,  that  their  views  might  be  obtained, 
and  also  lists  of  employers  who  rejected  the  act,  for  the  purpose  of 
learning  the  reasons  for  such  action. 

In  Illinois  there  was  used  a  list  of  employers  rejecting  the  new 
compensation  law,  effective  July  1,  1913,  of  which  there  were  500. 
There  were  also  circularized  in  that  State  a  large  percentage  of  the 
5,000  employers  who  refused  to  accept  the  preceding  law,  effective 
May  1,  1912,  as  well  as  employers  operating  under  the  present  act, 
ana  the  full  membership  of  the  Illinois  Manufacturers'  Association, 
John  M.  Glenn,  secretary,  Chicago;  and  the  Tri-City  Manufacturers' 
Association,  H.  A.  Jansen,  secretary,  Moline. 

In  Kansas  it  was  surprising  to  find  so  large  a  number  of  important 
concerns  (500)  which  had  elected  not  to  accept  the  act.  The  official 
list  of  such  employers  was  used  in  addition  to  covering  the  trades  in 
general,  as  usual  in  all  States. 

In  Massachusetts  the  special  lists  included  not  only  1,000  of  the 
employers  insured  either  in  the  Massachusetts  Employees'  Insurance 
Association  or  in  each  of  the  casualty  and  liability  indemnity  com- 
panies, but  also  the  official  list  from  the  Massachusetts  board  of  em- 
ployers uninsured  and  not  under  the  act.  There  were  17,000  employ- 
ers in  Massachusetts  who  accepted  the  act. 

In  Michigan  there  was  used  a  list  of  the  employers  carrying  their 
own  risk;  the  full  list  of  employers  in  the  Workmen's  Compensation 
Mutual  Insurance  Co.;  the  Michigan  Manufacturers'  Association, 
H.  C.  Hertz,  secretary;  and  the  Employers'  Association  of  Detroit, 
John  I.  Whirl,  secretary;  and  an  official  fist,  furnished  by  the  State 
board,  of  employers  who  had  adopted  the  act,  and  another  of  em- 
ployers who  nad  rejected  it.  The  total  who  accepted  the  act  in 

ichigan  was  10,760. 


ITINERARY   OF   COMMISSION.  217 

In  addition  to  general  trade  lists,  especial  assistance  was  given  or 
lists  were  furnished  as  follows: 

In  New  Jersey  the  Foundrymen's  Association  of  Newark,  Arthur 
E.  Barlow,  secretary,  gave  help  in  distributing  literature. 

In  New  Hampshire  a  special  list  was  furnished  by  the  labor  de- 
partment, comprising  the  21  employers  who  had  accepted  the  act. 

In  Nevada  the  100  companies  which  rejected  the  law,  according 
to  official  records,  were  addressed  in  particular. 

In  Rhode  Island  the  large  and  small  industries  covered  were 
especially  cotton  and  jewelry  manufacturers,  as  they  are  the  biggest 
interests  in  that  State. 

In  Wisconsin  all  members  of  the  Employers'  Mutual  Liability 
Insurance  Co.,  according  to  the  list  furnished  by  the  State  board, 
and  those  who  were  on  the  list  of  nonelections,  amounting  to  500  on 
October  6,  were  addressed,  as  well  as  those  carrying  their  own  risk, 
and  the  members  of  the  Merchants  aod  Manufacturers'  Association, 
William  G.  Bruce,  secretary,  Milwaukee. 

In  Ohio  a  list  was  furnished  by  the  industrial  commission,  giving 
representative  employers  who  had  adopted  the  State  plan  of  insur- 
ance. The  total  number  who  had  come  under  the  act  amounted  to 
2,100  to  2,700.  The  Industrial  Association  of  Cleveland,  Edward  J. 
Hobday,  secretary,  gave  special  service  in  distributing  literature. 

In  Washington  3,000  of  the  6,000  given  in  the  official  report  of 
the  Washington  State  Industrial  Insurance  Commission  for  the  12 
months  ending  September  30,  1912,  were  addressed. 

Others  who  were  consulted  and  interviewed  were :  George  H.  Webb, 
commissioner  of  the  bureau  of  industrial  statistics,  Providence,  R.  I.; 
Lee  H.  Ott,  chairman  public  service  commission,  Charleston,  W.  Va.; 
P.  J.  Watrous,  secretary  of  the  Wisconsin  Industrial  Insurance  Com- 
mission; James  M.  Carter,  secretary  of  the  Builders'  Association  Ex- 
change, Buffalo,  N.  Y.;  Walter  S.  Bucklin,  secretary  Massachusetts 
Employees'  Insurance  Association,  Boston,  Mass.;  P.  Tecumseh  Sher- 
man, attorney,  New  York  City;  H.  B.  Bradbury,  attorney,  New 
York  City;  and  John  B.  McPherson,  secretary  of  the  Civic  Federation 
of  New  England,  Boston,  Mass. 

STATE  INSURANCE  DEPARTMENTS. 

Illinois,  Rufus  M.  Potts,  superintendent Springfield. 

Kansas,  Ike  S.  Lewis,  superintendent Topeka. 

Massachusetts,  Frank  H.  Hardison,  commissioner Boston. 

Michigan,  Robert  K.  Orr,  manager  accident  fund Lansing. 

Minnesota,  J.  A.  0.  Preus,  commissioner St.  Paul. 

New  Jersey,  Thomas  K.  Johnston,  deputy  commissioner Trenton. 

New  York,  William  T.  Emmet,  superintendent New  York  City. 

Texas,  W.  W.  Collier,  commissioner Austin. 

Washington,  F.  W.  Hinsdale,  chief  auditor Olympia. 

Wisconsin,  Herman  L.  Ekern,  commissioner Madison. 

Canada: 

William  Fitzgerald,  superintendent .Ottawa. 

Alphonse  Gagnon,  secretary  department  of  public  works 
and  labor Quebec. 


218  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

LIST  OF  EMPLOYERS. 

There  are  listed  below  names  of  a  portion  of  the  firms  which  lent 
their  assistance  through  correspondence,  sufficient  in  number  and 
location  to  indicate  the  extent  of  the  inquiry  according  to  the  pe- 
culiarities of  the  laws  in  the  respective  States.  Interstate  corpora- 
tions are  given  under  the  States  in  which  they  have  had  the  greatest 
experience: 

CALIFORNIA. 

Alameda  County  Home  Builders  (Inc.) Berkeley. 

Albion  Lumber  Co.,  F.  H.  Manss Albion. 

American  Marble  &  Mosaic  Co ! San  Francisco. 

Anchor  Laundry  Co Los  Angeles. 

H.  T.  Anderson Visalia. 

Bickford  &  Wilson Los  Angeles. 

Bishop  Creek  Milling  Co.,  Paul  E.  Lodge,  local  agent Bishop. 

R.  C.  Blackwell Fresno. 

Samuel  Bloom  &  Sons  Co San  Francisco. 

Bluxome  &  Co.,  J.  D.  Bluxome San  Francisco. 

California  Boiler  Works San  Francisco. 

California  Corrugated  Culvert  Co West  Berkeley. 

California  Dental  Supply  Co.,  Roswell  P.  Annin,  secretary .. Los  Angeles. 

F.  E.  Carter Los  Angeles. 

Contra  Costa  Construction  Co.,  George  M.  Mott,  vice  presi- 
dent   Berkeley. 

Walter  H.  Creighton Oakland. 

Cyclops  Iron  Works . . " San  Francisco. 

N  orris  K.  Davis San  Francisco. 

F.  Duhring Sonoma. 

Eagle  Laundry  Co San  Francisco. 

Emeryville  Planing  Mill  Co Emeryville. 

The  Emporium San  Francisco. 

Enterprise  Foundry  Co San  Francisco. 

Enterprise  Laundry  Co.,  0.  W.  Boeselse,  manager Santa  Barbara. 

Garden  City  Implement  &  Vehicle  Co San  Jose. 

C.  M.  Gifford  &  Son San  Diego. 

Hale  Bros.  (Inc.) San  Francisco. 

Hercules  Powder  Co.,  H.  H.  Eastman San  Francisco. 

F.  L.  Hieatt  Brick  &  Tile  Co San  Diego. 

C.  J.  Hillard  Co San  Francisco. 

Holton  Interurban  Railway  Co Redlands. 

E.  Clemens  Horst  Co San  Francisco. 

Hotpoint  Electric  Heating  Co Ontario. 

Hunt  Bros.  Co Hayward. 

Judson  Manufacturing  Co San  Francisco. 

Judson  Paint  &  Grinding  Co West  Berkeley. 

Limoneira  Co Santa  Paula. 

Los  Angeles  Gas  &  Electric  Corporation Los  Angeles. 

Los  Angeles  Laundry  Co.,  K.  E.  Morgan,  president Los  Angeles. 

Peter  Lynch Napa  Junction. 

H.  C.  M'acCaulay  Foundry  Co.  (Inc.) Berkeley. 

Marine  Electric  Co San  Francisco. 

Mercantile  Realty  Co San  Francisco. 

Metal  Weld  Co San  Francisco. 

Metten  &  Gebhardt San  Francisco. 

Model  Laundry Long  Beach. 

Moore  &  Burlingame San  Francisco. 

Casa  N erdugo  ( Inc. ) Los  Angel es. 

New  Method  Laundry  Co Los  Angeles. 

New  Pennsylvania  Petroleum  Co Santa  Maria. 

Noble  Electric  Steel  Co.,  E.  S.  Morgan,  secretary San  Francisco. 

Northern  California  Power  Co.,  Consolidated San  Francisco. 

North  Star  Mines  Co Grass  Valley. 

The  Norton  Tanning  Co.,  C.  Jamison San  Francisco. 

Old  Homestead  Bakery San  Francisco. 


EMPLOYEES   WHO   ASSISTED. 

Pacific  Rolling  Mill  Co San  Francisco. 

Pacific  Sanitary  Manufacturing  Co San  Francisco. 

Pacific  Telephone  &  Telegraph  Co San  Francisco. 

Payne's  Bolt  Works San  Francisco. 

Pelton  Water  Wheel  Co.,  Edward  L.  Brayton,  president. .  .San  Francisco. 

S.  Petersen  &  Son San  Francisco. 

Quincy  Western  Railway  Co San  Francisco. 

Red  Star  Laundry  Co.,  J.  B.  Leaman San  Jose. 

San  Diego  Consolidated  Brewing  Co San  Diego. 

Santa  Paula  Garage-Machine  Co Santa  Paula. 

Santa  Paula  Hardware  Co Santa  Paula. 

Scoville  Iron  Works Oakland. 

H.  K.  Small  &  Sons Riverside. 

Smith-Booth-Usher  Co.,  H.  P.  Usher,  treasurer Los  Angeles. 

C.  A.  Smith  Lumber  Co Oakland. 

Southern  California  Edison  Co.,  R.  H.  Ballard,  secretary  and 

assistant  general  manager Los  Angeles. 

South  San  Francisco  Belt  Railway. San  Francisco. 

Southwestern  Home  Telephone  Co Redlands. 

Standard  Oil  Co San  Francisco. 

Steiger  &  Kerr  Stove  &  Foundry  Co San  Francisco. 

Sterling  Iron  Works Stockton. 

Swan  The  Painter  (Inc.),  J.  S.  Swan,  president San  Francisco. 

Adolph  Teichert  &  Son Sacramento. 

Joseph  S.  Thompson San  Francisco. 

Thompson  Bros San  Francisco. 

Threlkeld,  Blohm  &  Co San  Francisco. 

Thurston  &  Co.,  E.  C.  Kruse,  jr San  Francisco. 

Tieslau  Bros Berkeley. 

Tightner  Mines  Co Grass  Valley. 

Toulouse  &  Delorieux  Co.  (Inc.) San  Francisco. 

Troy  Laundry  Co Pasadena. 

Union  Iron  Works  Co.,  J.  A.  McGregor,  president San  Francisco. 

Walker  &  Hener San  Francisco. 

Weinstock,  Lubin  &  Co.,  I.  Loerch Sacramento. 

ILLINOIS. 

Acme  Steel  Goods  Co.,  James  B.  MacMurray,  president Chicago. 

Albion  Shale  Brick  Co Albion. 

Allith-Prouty  Co Danville. 

Andrews  Wire  &  Iron  Works,  Charles  Andrews,  jr.,  secre- 
tary-treasurer   Rockford. 

Avery  Co.,  G.  L.  Avery,  secretary Peoria. 

The  Barr  Clay  Co Streator. 

G.  Bossenga  Co Chicago. 

Central  Union  Telephone  &  Telegraph  Co Chicago. 

Chicago  &  North  Western  Railway  Co Chicago. 

Chicago  Automatic  Machine  Co Chicago. 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Railroad  Co.,  H.  E.  Byram, 
vice  president .".  .Chicago. 

Chicago  Hardware  Foundry  Co North  Chicago. 

Chicago  Mill  &  Lumber  Co Chicago. 

J.  L.  Clark  Manufacturing  Co Rockiord. 

John  Coleman Mount  Carmel. 

The  Combination  Fountain  Co Decatur. 

Commonwealth  Edison  Co.,  John  F.  Gilchrist,  assistant  to 
president Chicago. 

Commonwealth  Steel  Co Granite  City. 

Continental  Bridge  Co Peotone. 

J.  C.  Deacon  Co Chicago. 

Decatur  Brewing  Co.,  Frank  Shlandeman.  president  and 
treasurer Decatur. 

Decatur  Bridge  Co Decatur. 

Deere  &  Co.,  L.  A.  Paradise,  superintendent Moline. 

Desaulniers  &  Co Moline. 

Dobson  Manufacturing  Co Rockford. 


220  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION'. 

Elgin  National  Watch  Co.,  Charles  H.  Hubbard,  president-  .Chicago. 

Felt  &  Tarrant  Manufacturing  Co Chicago. 

Fiirst  &  Fanning Chicago. 

William  Ganschow  Co Chicago. 

Cesaire  Gareau Chicago. 

General  Roofing  Manufacturing  Co East  St.  Louis. 

Goetz  Co Chicago. 

Green  Bros.  Box  &  Lumber  Co Rockford. 

Hart  Grain  Weigher  Co Peoria. 

R.  Herschel  Manufacturing  Co.,  C.  E.  Edes,  auditor Peoria. 

Hibbard,  Spencer,  Bartlett  &  Co.,  F.  L.  Macomber,  credit 
manager Chicago. 

P.  Hohenadel,  jr.,  Canning  Co Rochelle. 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  Co.,  Blewett  Lee,  general  solicitor.  .Chicago. 

Illinois  Glass  Co.,  Charles  G.  Caskey,  manager  insurance 
department Alton. 

Illinois  Knitting  Co.,  P.  C.  Withers,  president Mount  Vernon. 

Illinois  Packing  Box  Co.,  John  J.  Haggerty Chicago. 

Illinois  Steel  Co Chicago. 

Imperial  Brass  Manufacturing  Co Chicago. 

Independent  Harvester  Co Piano. 

J.  B.  Inderrieden  Co Chicago. 

International  Harvester  Co.,  L.  A.  Rauney,  secretary Chicago. 

The  International  Register  Co Chicago. 

Interstate  Light  &  Power  Co.,  H.  Gordon,  manager  insurance 
department Galena. 

The  John  Crerar  Library,  Clement  W.  Andrews,  librarian Chicago. 

W.  A.  Jones  Foundry&  Machine  Co Chicago. 

Keystone  Steel  &  Wire  Co.,  B.  L.  Sommer,  secretary- 
treasurer Peoria. 

Kimble  Electric  Co Chicago. 

George  H.  Kirk Chicago. 

Mathias  Klein  &  Sons Chicago. 

Klipfel  Manufacturing  Co.,  John  Schulz,  secretary-treasurer. Chicago. 

Kroeschell  Bros.  Ice  Machinery  Co Chicago. 

Lammert  &  Mann Chicago. 

Leader  Iron  Works Decatur. 

Leisy  Brewing  Co Peoria. 

Max  Levy  &  Co Chicago. 

E.  W.  Lewis  Roofing  Co Rock  Island. 

Link-Belt  Co Chicago. 

A.  Lucas  &  Sons Peoria. 

Ludowici-Celadon  Co Chicago. 

McDonald  Machine  Co Chicago. 

McNeill,  Lauff  &  McNeill Chicago. 

H .  Z .  Mallen  &  Co Chicago . 

Mears-Slayton  Lumber  Co Chicago. 

Miehle  Printing  Press  &  Manufacturing  Co.,  L.  T.  Auster- 
mell,  secretary-treasurer Chicago. 

Missouri  Malleable  Iron  Co East  St.  Louis. 

Moline  Automobile  Co East  Moline. 

Moline  Furniture  Works Moline. 

Moline  Scale  Co East  Moline. 

Moline  Tool  Co Moline. 

Monarch  Box  Co .Chicago. 

Mount  Vernon  Car  Manufacturing  Co.,  W.  C.  Arthurs,  presi- 
dent   Mount  Vernon. 

H.  Mueller  Manufacturing  Co Decatur. 

Mutual  Wheel  Co.,  George  McMaster,  secretary-treasurer. .  .Moline. 

National  Cooperage  &  Wooden  ware  Co Peoria. 

National  Manufacturing  Co Sterling. 

William  R.  Perrin  &  Co Sycamore. 

C.  E.  Peterson  Co Chicago. 

Pyott  Foundry  Co Chicago. 

Raike,  Friedman  &  Co Chicago. 

Ravmond  Bros.  Impact  Pulverizer  Co.,  C.  M.  Lauritzen, 
vice  president  and  manager Chicago. 


EMPLOYEES   WHO   ASSISTED.  221 

Eugene  0.  Reed  Co.  (Inc.) Chicago. 

Evans  L.  Reed  Mfg.  Co. Sterling. 

Regensteiner  Colortype  Co Chicago. 

Renaud  Roofing  Co Chicago. 

The  Rice  &  Hutchins  Chicago  Co.,  W.  G.  Colvin,  treasurer 
and  manager Chicago. 

O.  W.  Richardson  &  Co Chicago. 

Rockford  City  Traction  Co Rockford. 

Rockford  &  Interurban  Co Rockford. 

Rockf oid  Mitten  &  Hosiery  Co Rockford . 

Rock  Island  Brewing  Co Rock  Island. 

Rock  Island  Stove  Co .• Rock  Island. 

The  Root  &  Van  Dervoort  Engineering  Co East  Moline. 

Rosenbaum  Bros.,  Wm.  C.  Renstrom,  secretary Chicago. 

Rosen wald  &  Weil Chicago. 

Roth  Bros.  &  Co Chicago. 

Rueckheim  Bros.  &  Eckstein Chicago. 

Russell,  Burdsall  &  Ward  Bolt  &  Nut  Co.,  A.  S.  Bradford, 
manager Rock  Falls. 

The  Peter  Schoenhofen  Brewing  Co.,  R.  Ostenrieder,  secre- 
tary-treasurer  Chicago. 

Sandwich  Mfg.  Co.,  C.  A.  Phelps Sandwich. 

The  Scarborough  Co Chicago. 

Schiller  Piano  Co Oregon. 

A.  J.  Schindler  Co Chicago. 

Albert  Schwill  &  Co Chicago. 

Sears,  Roebuck  &  Co Chicago. 

D.  M.  Sechler  Implement  &  Carriage  Co Moline. 

The  Sefton  Mfg.  Co Chicago. 

Selz,  Schwab  &  Co Chicago. 

The  Seng  Co Chicago. 

Sewell  Clapp — Envelopes Chicago. 

The  Henry  O.  Shepard  Co Chicago. 

F.  Siegel  &  Bros Chicago. 

Simpson,  Bevans  &  Co Chicago. 

Skandia  Furniture  Co Rockford. 

Smith  &  Phillips  Mfg.  Co Chicago. 

F.  P.  Smith  Wire  &  Iron  Works,  F.  P.  Smith Chicago. 

A.  G.  SpaldingMfg.  Co Chicago. 

Staver  Carriage  Co Chicago. 

Streator  Aqueduct  Co Streator. 

Stromberg,  Allen  &  Co Chicago. 

Strube  Machine  Works Chicago. 

Sullivan  Machinery  Co.,  Frederick  K.  Copeland,  president.  .Chicago. 

Robert  Tarrant Chicago. 

The  Temple  Pump  Co Chicago. 

Tyler  &  Hippach Chicago. 

Union  Furniture  Co.,  P.  A.  Peterson,  president Rockford. 

Union  Wire  Mattress  Co Chicago. 

United  Coal  Mining  Co Chicago. 

United  States  Equipment  Co Chicago. 

United  States  Slicing  Machine  Co Chicago. 

United  States  Steel  Corporation,  Raynal  C.  Boiling,  gen- 
eral solicitor Chicago. 

Universal  Portland  Cement  Co Chicago. 

Vaughan  &  Bushnell  Mfg.  Co Chicago. 

Weems  Laundry  Co Quincy. 

Weis- Peterson  Box  Co Cairo. 

Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  Richard  Burr,  assistant  comptroller Chicago. 

Western  Brewery  Co Belleville. 

Western  Felt  Works Chicago. 

The  Western  Glass  Co Streator. 

Whiting  Foundry  Equipment  Co Harvey. 

Wilder  &  Co Chicago. 

Willis  &  Sons  Co Moline. 

F.  Cortez  Wilson  &  Co.,  George  Landis  Wilson,  president.  .Chicago. 

Wilson  Bros Chicago. 


222  WOKKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Charles  T.  Wilt Chicago. 

J.  H.  Winterbotham  &  Sons Chicago. 

Torrifl  Wold  &  Co Chicago. 

Wolf,  Sayer  &  Heller,  G.  Reichardt,  assistant  treasurer Chicago. 

Woplner  Distilling  Co Peoria. 

Wright  Carriage  Body  Co.  >. Moline. 

The  Rudolph  Wurlitzer  Co.,  E.  H.  Uhl,  manager Chicago. 

The  Zangerle  &  Peterson  Co Chicago. 

William  Zoeller  Co Chicago . 

KANSAS. 

The  Atchison  Revolving  Door  Co Independence. 

Besse  Cockerill  Coal  Co Pittsburg. 

The  Carlisle-Pennell  Lumber  Co.,  William  Carlisle,  presi- 
dent and  general  manager Atchison. 

The  Cement  Stone  &  Supply  Co Wichita. 

Central  Sash  &  Door  Co Topeka. 

Chicago  Lumber  &  Coal  Co Concordia. 

Chicago,  Rock  Island  &  Pacific  Railway,  A.  E.  Sweet, 
general  manager Topeka. 

Clay  County  Creamery  Co Clay  Center. 

A.  B.  Clippinger  &  Sons Kansas  City. 

The  Coffeyville  Vitrified  Brick  &  Tile  Co Coffeyville. 

The  Coleman  Lamp  Co Wichita. 

The  Frank  Colladay  Hardware  Co Hutchinson. 

Continental  Cereal  Co Leavenworth. 

C.  L.  Cowan lola. 

Crane  &  Co.,  F.  S.  Crane,  president Topeka. 

The  Crescent  Produce  Co Newton. 

G.  Dahlin  &  Sons Kansas  City. 

The  Davis  Mercantile  Co Topeka. 

The  Ellsworth-Klaner  Construction  Co Pittsburg. 

The  Hauser-Ganison  Dry  Goods  Co Wichita. 

The  Helmers  Manufacturing  Co.,  H.  J.  Helmers,  jr.,  vice 
president Leavenworth. 

Henneberry  &  Co Arkansas  City. 

T.  M.  Hobson Paola. 

Hodges  Bros Edgerton. 

Hodgins  Kaczynski Kansas  City. 

E.  Horn  Co Topeka. 

J.  M.  Hussey Wichita. 

The  lola  Portland  Cement  Co.,  J.  A.  Wheeler,  secretary..  .lola. 

H.  M.  Ives  &  Sons Topeka. 

Arthur  Jacobson Garden  City. 

Johnson  &  Beck Topeka. 

State  of  Kansas.  Charles  H.  Sessions,  secretary  of  state Topeka. 

The  Kansas  Buff  Brick  &  Manufacturing  Co Buffville. 

The  Kansas  Chemical  Manufacturing  Co Hutchinson. 

Kansas  Oil  Refining  Co Coffeyville. 

C.  A.  Karlan  Furniture  Co Topeka.  • 

The  Kaw  Package  Manufacturing  Co Topeka. 

The  Kaw  Paving  Co.,  H.  A.  Kingsley,  vice  president  and 
manager Topeka. 

Kaw  Valley  Icing  Co. Topeka. 

The  Lakin-McKey  Manufacturing  Co Fort  Scott. 

The  McCleery  Lumber  Co Topeka. 

The  George  T.  McGrath  Coal  Co.,  George  T.  McGrath,  presi- 
dent  Pittsburg. 

The  S.  D.  McNaghten  Shoe  Manufacturing  Co Wichita. 

The  Martin  Metal  Manufacturing  Co Wichita. 

The  Massey  Iron  Co Wichita. 

The  Merritt-Schwier  Creamery  Co Great  Bend. 

The  Missouri  Bridge  &  Iron  Co.,  E.  H.  Connor,  vice  presi- 
dent and  chief  engineer Leavenworth. 

National  Bedding  Co Leavenworth. 

The  New  England  Building  Co..... , Topeka. 


EMPLOYEES    WHO    ASSISTED.  223 

North  Star  Manufacturing  Co Coffeyville. 

Peet  Bros.  Manufacturing  Co Kansas  City. 

Pittsburg  Marble  Works Pittsburg. 

Quality  Troy  Laundry Wichita. 

William  Schick  Manufacturing  Co Topeka. 

George  A.  Shaul Seneca. 

F.  M.  Spencer  &  Son Topeka. 

The  Steffen-B retch  Ice  &  Ice  Cream  Co Wichita. 

J.  J.  Stephenson  Coal  Co Pittsburg. 

W.  A.  L.  Thompson  Hardware  Co Topeka. 

Topeka  Cold  Storage,  Ice  &  Fuel  Co Topeka. 

J.  H.  Turner Wichita. 

United  Sash  &  Door  Co Wichita. 

The  Uhrich  Planing  Mill  Co Independence. 

The  Western  Iron  &  Foundry  Co Wichita. 

Western  Sign  Works  Co Wichita. 

A.  J.  Wright Wichita. 

R.  B.  Yoakum Leavenworth. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

F.B.Alexander West  Newton. 

American  Book  Co.,  Frank  A.  Fitzpatrick,  manager Boston. 

American  Can  Co Boston. 

American  Express  Co.,  C.  W.  Robie,  assistant  general 
manager Boston. 

American  Felt  Co.,  C.  I.  De  Witt,  supervisor  of  plants Boston. 

American  Printing  Co Fall  River. 

American  Soda  Fountain  Co.,  Thomas  J.  Morton,  jr.,  sec- 
retary  Boston. 

Andrews- Wasgatt  Co Everett. 

Arey  Bros Boston. 

Attleboro  Refining  Co Attleboro. 

J.  W.  Aulson  &  Sons Lynn. 

W.  L.  Bacon New  Bedford. 

S.  R.  Bailey  &  Co.  (Inc.) Amesbury. 

Bain  Bros.  Co Boston. 

C.  H.  Bangs  Druggists'  Fixture  Co.,  C.  L.  Bangs,  treasurer.. Boston. 

A.  J.  Bates  Co Webster. 

Bay  State  Street  Railway  Co.,  P.  F.  Sullivan,  president... Boston. 

Berkshire  Cotton  Manufacturing  Co Adams. 

Besse,  Osborn  &  Odell  (Inc.) Boston. 

Bird  &  Son East  Walpole. 

Bliss  &  Perry  Co Newburyport. 

J.  G.  Blount  Co Everett. 

Boston  Chamber  of  Commere,  Daniel  D.  Morse,  treasurer.  .Boston. 

Boston  Coupling  Co Boston. 

Boston  Manufacturing  Co.,  Arthur  T.  Lyman,  president..  .Waltham. 

Boston  Protective  Department,  Edward  Spaulding,  secre- 
tary-treasurer  Boston. 

Boston  Rubber  Shoe  Co.,  W.  C.  Piper,  general  superin- 
tendent  Maiden. 

Boston  &  Albany  Railroad,  H.  M.  Biscoe^  vice  president.  .Boston. 

Boston  &  Maine  Railroad,  Charles  S.  Pierce,  assistant  gen- 
eral solicitor Boston. 

Bowler  Bros.  (Ltd.),  William  F.  Donoghue Worcester. 

E.  D.  Brigham Ashburnham. 

Bristol  Patent  Leather  Co Boston. 

Brockton  Heel  Co Campello. 

Brown- Wales  Co. ,  William  O.  Wales,  treasurer Boston. 

J.F.Buckley Needham. 

TheCass&  Daley  Shoe  Co Salem. 

H.  A.  Chester  &  Co Boston. 

Churchill  &  Alden  Co Brockton,  Campello. 

The  Commonwealth  Shoe  &  Leather  Co..  Charles  H.  Jones.. Boston. 

Creese  &  Cook  Co Danvers. 

Frank  A.  Cutting. T Boston. 


224  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Dennison  Manufacturing  Co Framingham 

H.  P.  Dion New  Bedford. 

Clarence  T.  Dooley,  C.  T.  Dooley Cambridge 

W.  L.  Douglas  Shoe  Co Brockton. 

Eagle  Shoe  Manufacturing  Co.,  Frank  T.  Johanson Everett. 

Charles  A.  Eaton  Co.,  A.  L.  McDonald,  treasurer Brockton. 

Edgeworth  Mill Worcester. 

Edison  Electric  Illuminating  Co.  of  Boston,  H.  W.  Moses, 

superintendent  welfare  bureau Boston. 

Eldredge&Son Milford. 

George  H.  Ellis  Co Boston. 

Emerson  Shoe  Co Rockland. 

L.  B.  Evans'  Son  Co.,  A.  L.  Evans Wakefield. 

E.  &  R.  Laundry  Co Worcester. 

Fall  River  Automatic  Telephone  Co Fall  River. 

Farley,  Carney  &  Co Boston. 

Finlanders  Stock  Co Fitchburg. 

Fitchburg  Foundry  Co,  M.  J.  Perault,  proprietor Fitchburg. 

Fitchburg  Steam  Engine  Co Fitchburg. 

Foster  Bros Boston. 

George  A.  Fuller  Co .Boston. 

Goodell-Pratt  Co. ,  William  M.  Pratt,  president Greenfield. 

H.  R.  Grant Everett. 

J.  J.  Grover's  Sons Lynn. 

Harding  Uniform  &  Regalia  Co.,  A.  Smith,  treasurer Boston. 

Hickman  &  Doucette  (Inc.) Brockton. 

Billiard  &  Merrill  (Inc.) Lynn. 

H.  A.  Holder Boston. 

Hood  Rubber  Co. ,  F.  C.  Hood,  general  manager Watertown. 

A.  J.  Houghton  Co Boston. 

James  Hunter  Machine  Co North  Adams. 

International  Instrument  Co Cambridge. 

J.  W.  &E.  F.Johnson Woburn. 

Keith  Car  &  Manufacturing  Co Sagamore. 

Preston  B .  Keith  Shoe  Co Brockton. 

Keough  Electric  Co Boston. 

Kingman  &  Swift Brockton. 

Allan  A.  Kingsbery Medfield. 

Leonard,  Shaw  &  Dean Middleboro. 

Leopold  Morse  Co Boston. 

Edwin  C.  Lewis  (Inc.) Boston. 

Frederick  Leyland  &  Co.  (Ltd.) Boston. 

Lord  Electric  Co Boston. 

D.  Lovejoy  &  Son Lowell. 

Ludlow   Manufacturing   Associates,    Malcolm    B.    Stone, 

treasurer Boston. 

J.  Lunan  &  Sons Fall  River. 

W.  H.  McElwain  Co.,  Clifford  P.  Warren,  assistant  secretary  .Boston. 

J.  H.  McNamara A.llston. 

Maiden  &  Melrose  Gas  Light  Co Boston 

Maple  Street  Laundry Fall  River. 

C.  S.  Marshall  Co Brockton. 

H.  Newton  Marshall  Co Boston. 

Massachusetts  Cremation  Society Boston. 

Metropolitan  Coal  Co Boston. 

Milford  Iron  Foundry Milford. 

Milne  &  Chalmers  (Inc.) Quincy. 

Morgan's  Pharmacy,  A.  B.  Morgan,  Ph.  G Maiden. 

Morgan  Spring  Co Worcester. 

National  Express  Co Boston. 

Naumkeag  Steam  Cotton  Co.,  S.  Parker  Bremer Salem. 

John  D.  Newall Lawrence. 

The  New  England  Steamship  Co.,  J.  Howland  Gardner, 

vice  president Fall  River. 

New  England  Steamship  Co.,  J.  Howland  Gardner,  vice 

president New  Bedford. 

New  England  Tank  &  Tower  Co Boston. 


EMPLOYERS   WHO   ASSISTED.  225 

New  England  Telephone  &  Telegraph  Co.,  Walter  T.  Han- 
nigan,  secretary Boston. 

The  New  Home  Sewing  Machine  Co Orange. 

Norris  Noiseless  Pedal  Action  Co.,  Albert  F.  Norris,  pres- 
ident  Stoughton. 

Norton  Co.,  Aldus  C.  Higgins,  secretary Worcester. 

Olmsted  Bros Brookline. 

Olson  &  Johnson Revere. 

Parkhill  Manufacturing  Co Fitchburg. 

M.  H.  Parks  Co Wateryille. 

Penniman  &  James Cambridge. 

Pentucket  Laundry Haverhill. 

Thomas  G.  Plant  Co Jamaica  Plain. 

Plymouth  Electric  Light  Co Plymouth. 

Pontoosuc  Woolen  Manufacturing  Co.,  Thomas  F.  Plunkett.Pittsfield. 

Herberts.  Potter Boston. 

Red  Star  Line Boston. 

Reid  &  Hughes  Co Lawrence. 

Richardson  Manufacturing  Co Worcester. 

Robert  Robertson  Co Beverly. 

Shaw  Stocking  Co.,  Will  H.  Howe Lowell. 

John  Shea Lawrence. 

A.  W.  Sherman North  Marshfield. 

Simonds  Manufacturing  Co Fitchburg. 

Slipper  City  Wood  Heel  Co Haverhill. 

L.  E.  Smith  Co Gloucester. 

Smith  Carr  Baking  Co Greenfield. 

Smith  &  Dove  Manufacturing  Co Andover. 

Spencer  &  Co Everett. 

Springfield   Breweries  Co.,   James  A.   Gibbons,   assistant 

treasurer Springfield. 

Springfield  Webbing  Co Springfield. 

Standard  Tire  &  Rubber  Co .Springfield. 

Star  Brewing  Co Boston. 

Stetson  Shoe  Co.,  A.  C.  Heald,  treasurer South  Weymouth. 

B.  F.  Sturtevant  Co Hyde  Park,  Boston. 

Sunshine  Laundry Brookline. 

Swan  Electric  Co Boston. 

Talbot  Mills North  Billerica. 

H.  L.  Thomas  &  Co Swampscott. 

Thomson-Crocker  Shoe  Co Boston. 

Tide- Water  Broken  Stone  Co.,  Eugene  R.  Atwood,  treasurer. Quincy. 

United  Shoe  Machinery  Co.,  M.  B.  Kaven Boston. 

Wachusett  Shirt  Co Leominster. 

A.  L.  Wales Groveland. 

Waltham  Watch  Co.,  Harry  L.  Brown,  treasurer Waltham. 

Walworth  Manufacturing  Co.,  Howard  Condey,  president.  .Boston. 

Weir  Stove  Co Taunton. 

Wells  Bros.  Co.,  L.  M.  Lamb,  assistant  treasurer Greenfield. 

The  Wire  Goods  Co.,  H.  B.  Douglas,  superintendent Worcester. 

C.  A.  Woolley  &  Co East  Boston. 

Worcester  Pressed  Steel  Co.,  Henry  H.  Knapp Worcester. 

Wyman  &  Gordon  Co Worcester. 

M.  Zimmerman  Co Boston. 

MICHIGAN. 

Acme  White  Lead  &  Color  Works Detroit. 

Ahmeek  Mining  Co Calumet. 

W.  O.  Albig  Department  Store Adrian. 

Albion  Lumber  Co Albion. 

Albion  Malleable  Iron  Co Albion. 

Alert  Pipe  &  Supply  Co.,  Edward  J.  Bissell,  president Bay  City. 

Allegan  Mirror  &  Frame  Co Allegan. 

Allouez  Mining  Co Allouez. 

Alpena  Hide  &  Leather  Co Alpena. 

Amazon  Knitting  Co Muskegon. 

30003— S.  Doc.  419,  63-2 15 


226  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

American  Blower  Co.,  C.  H.  Gifford,  treasurer Detroit. 

American-Boston  Mining  Co Diorite. 

American  Brass  &  Iron  Co Detroit. 

American  Car  &  Foundry  Co.,  E.  D.  Alexander,  adjuster... Detroit. 

American  Fork  &  Hoe  Co Jackson. 

American  National  Bank Benton  Harbor. 

American  Seating  Co.,  J.  S.  Stiles,  manager Grand  Rapids. 

American  Wire  Fabrics  Co Niles. 

Anderson  Electric  Car  Co.,  Elmer  H.  Dearth,  secretary  and 

general  manager Detroit. 

Antrim  Iron  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Auto  Body  Co Lansing. 

Auto  Crank  Shaft  Co.,  A.  H.  Pearson,  purchasing  agent Detroit. 

Bacon  Manufacturing  Co Pontiac. 

Bardeen  Paoer  Co Otsego. 

William  Barie  Dry  Goods  Co Saginaw. 

Baxter  Laundry  Co.,  H.  F.  Baxter Grand  Rapids. 

James  Bayne  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Estate  of  P.  D.  Beckwith  (Inc.) Dowagiac. 

Belding  Bros.  &  Co Belding. 

Belknap  Wagon  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Bennett  Fuel  &  Ice  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Benton  Harbor  Malleable  Foundry  Co Benton  Harbor. 

Berry  Bros.  (Inc.) Detroit. 

Bissell  Carpet  Sweeper  Co.,  F.  M.  Deane,  treasurer Grand  Rapids. 

Blood  Bros.  Machine  Co Kalamazoo. 

Briggs  &  Cooper  Co.  (Ltd.) Saginaw. 

A.  E.  Brooks  &  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Brooks  Manufacturing  Co Saginaw. 

Brotherton  Iron  Mining  Co Wakefield. 

Brown  &  Seler  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Bryant  Paper  Co Kalamazoo. 

J.  H.  Bueker's  Manufacturing  Co Detroit. 

Buffalo  Iron  Mining  Co Iron  River. 

Buhl  Malleable  Co.,  S.  A.  Commons,  secretary-treasurer Detroit. 

Buick  Motor  Co.,  F.  A.  Allen,  assistant  secretary-treasurer. Flint. 
Burroughs  Adding  Machine  Co.,  E.  P.  Wenger,  assistant 

secretary-treasurer Detroit. 

Cadillac  Chemical  Co Cadillac. 

Cadillac  Gas  Light  Co Cadillac. 

Cadillac  Handle  Co Cadillac. 

Cadillac  Motor  Car  Co Detroit. 

Calumet  &  Hecla  Co Calumet. 

C.  D.  Carpenter Big  Rapids. 

Cartercar  Co Pontiac. 

Celfor  Tool  Co.,  M.  W.  Hanlin,  general  manager Buchanan. 

Centennial  Copper  Mining  Co Calumet. 

Central  Boiler  Works,  Charles  E.  McGregor,  proprietor Detroit. 

Central  Paper  Co Muskegon. 

Challenge  Machinery  Co Grand  Haven. 

Challenge  Refrigerating  Co Grand  Haven. 

Chalmers  Motor  Co.,  W.  P.  Bradley,  insurance  department.  .Detroit. 

Champion  Brass  Works Coldwater. 

E.  Chappie  &  Co Belding. 

Cheboygan  Flour  Mill  Co Cheboygan. 

Cheboygan  Paper  Co Cheboygan. 

Chevrolet  Motor  Co Flint. 

Citizens  Light  &  Power  Co.,  H.  A.  Fee,  manager Adrian. 

City  Plumbing  Co : St.  Joseph. 

Cleveland-Cliffs  Iron  Co.,  W.  H.  Moulton,  secretary Ishpeming. 

Cliff  Mining  Co Calumet. 

Clipper  Belt  Lacer  Co.,  F.  A.  Stone,  secretary-treasurer Grand  Rapids. 

Cobbs  &  Mitchell  (Inc.) Cadillac. 

Colonial  Laundry  Co Detroit. 

Colonial  Manufacturing  Co.,  Herman  Miller,  manager Zeeland. 

Cooney  &  Smith Saginaw. 

Cooper, Wells  &  Co St.  Joseph. 


EMPLOYERS   WHO   ASSISTED.  227 

Covel  Manufacturing  Co Benton  Harbor. 

Crowley,  Milner  &  Co Detroit. 

Cummer-Biggins  Co Cadillac. 

Dahm  &  Fanning  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Daisy  Manufacturing  Co.,  E.  C.  Hough,  treasurer Plymouth. 

Dake  Engine  Co Grand  Haven. 

DeFoe  Boat  &  Motor  Works Bay  City. 

Detour  Dock  Co Detour. 

Detroit  Brass  Works Detroit. 

Detroit  City  Gas  Co Detroit. 

Detroit  Fire  &  Marine  Insurance  Co.,  A.  H.  McDonel,  sec- 
retary  Detroit. 

Detroit  Foundry  Co Detroit. 

Detroit  Fuse  &  Manufacturing*  Co Detroit. 

Detroit  Gear  &  Machine  Co Detroit. 

Detroit  Insulated  Wire  Co Detroit. 

Detroit  Lumber  Co Detroit. 

Detroit  Steel  Products  Co Detroit. 

Detroit  Stove  Works Detroit. 

Detroit  Wire  Bound  Box  Co Detroit. 

Dr.  Denton  Sleeping  Garment  Mills,  T.  M.  Thomas,  man- 
ager  Centerville. 

Dodge  Bros Detroit. 

W .  J.  Dowsett  Co Jackson . 

Durant-Dort  Carriage  Co Flint. 

Eastern  Michigan  Edison-Wash tenaw  Division Ann  Arbor. 

East  Jordan  Clay  Products  Co.,  B.  E.  Waterman,  secretary . East  Jordan. 

East  Jordan  Lumber  Co East  Jordan. 

East  Jordan  Planing  Mills  Co.,  B.  E.  Waterman,  vice 
president  and  treasurer East  Jordan. 

Eberle  Brewing  Co Jackson. 

Edson,  Moore  &  Co Detroit. 

Enameled  Tank  Co.,  H.  E.  Roether,  secretary Kalamazoo. 

Enterprise  Foundry  Co Detroit. 

Escanaba  &  Lake  Superior  Railroad  Co.,  C.  W.  Kates,  gen- 
eral superintendent Wells. 

Eureka  Machine  Co Lansing. 

Fairview  Coal  &  Supply  Co Detroit. 

Federal  Motor  Truck  Co Detroit. 

Henry  Feige  &  Son Saginaw. 

Fletcher  Paper  Co Alpena. 

J.  B.  Ford  Co Wyandotte. 

Ford  Motor  Co.,  L.  B.  Robertson,  general  attorney Detroit. 

Thomas  Forman  Co Detroit. 

E.  B.  Foss  &  Co Bay  City. 

Foster  Stevens  &  Co. . : Grand  Rapids. 

Frost  Gear  &  Machine  Co Jackson. 

Ferguson  Manufacturing  Co Lansing. 

Furniture  Mutual  Insurance  Co.,  Francis  D.  Campau, 
counsel Grand  Rapids. 

Gardner,  Peterman  &  Co Saginaw. 

General  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.,  of  Michigan Detroit. 

General  Gas  Light  Co Kalamazoo. 

Gilmore  Bros Kalamazoo. 

Goodwillie  Bros Manistique. 

J.  C.  Goss  Co Detroit. 

Grande  Brick  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Grand  Ledge  Chair  Co Grand  Ledge. 

Grand  Rapids  Bookcase  &  Chair  Co Hastings. 

Grand  Rapids  Brewing  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Grand  Rapids  Brush  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Grand  Rapids  Hardware  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Grand  Rapids  Refrigerator  Co.,  C.  H.  Leonard,  president.. Grand  Rapids. 

Gray  Motor  Co Detroit. 

Great  Lakes  Engineering  Works Detroit. 

Great  Lakes  Laundry  Co Sault  Ste.  Marie. 

Greenwood  Lumber  Co Ontonagon. 


228  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Gunn  Furniture  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Hammond,  Standish  &  Co Detroit. 

Hardware  Supply  Co.,  C.  L.  Frost,  president Grand  Rapids. 

Hartford  Stave  Co Hartford. 

Hartwick  Lumber  Co Detroit. 

A.  Harvey's  Sons  Manufacturing  Co ., Detroit. 

Hastings  Table  Co Hastings. 

J.  F.  Hasty  &  Sons Detroit. 

Hayes-Ionia  Co Ionia. 

H.  C.  &  S.  W.  Railway  Co Chassell. 

Charles  Hebard  &  Sons  (Inc.) Pequaming. 

Hemlock  River  Mining  Co Amasa. 

Herzog  Art  Furniture  Co Saginaw. 

Himes  Manufacturing  Co '. Lansing. 

Holland  Furniture  Co Holland. 

Holland-St.  Louis  Sugar  Co Holland. 

Holland  Shoe  Co Holland. 

Holton  Co Jackson. 

Home  Laundry  Co Flint. 

Houghton  Copper  Co Dodgeville. 

J.  L.  Hudson  Co Detroit. 

Hudson  Motor  Car  Co Detroit. 

Humphrey  Co Kalamazoo. 

Hupp  Motor  Car  Co Detroit. 

Huron  Portland  Cement  Co Detroit. 

Imperial  Wheel  Co Flint. 

Indiana  Box  Co Muskegon. 

Frederick  F.  Ingram  Co Detroit. 

Ireland  &  Matthews  Manufacturing  Co Detroit. 

Isle  Royale  Copper  Co Calumet. 

Jackson  &  Church  Co Saginaw. 

Jackson  Rim  Co Jackson. 

Jenks  &  Muir  Manufacturing  Co Detroit. 

Jesiek  Boat  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Johnson  Furniture  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Johnson  Howard  Co Kalamazoo. 

J.  R.  Jones  Sons  &  Co Kalamazoo. 

Kalamazoo  Bread  Co Kalamazoo. 

Kalamazoo  Paper  Co Kalamazoo. 

Kalamazoo  Sled  Co.,  W.  E.  Kidder,  secretary-treasurer- 
manager Kalamazoo. 

Kalamazoo  Stove  Co Kalamazoo. 

Kales  Haskel  Co Detroit. 

Keeler  Brass  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Kellogg  &  Buck Morenci. 

C.  Kern  Brewing  Co Port  Huron. 

King  Milling  Co Lowell. 

King  Paper  Co. .  .^ Kalamazoo. 

Korff  Manufacturing  Co Lansing. 

Charles  W.  Kotcher Detroit. 

Lake  Milling,  Smelting  &  Refining  Co Calumet. 

Lake  Superior  &  Ishpeming  Ry.  Co.,  H.  R.  Harris,  gen- 
eral manager Marquette. 

Lake  Superior  Smelting  Co Calumet. 

Lansing  Fuel  &  Gas  Co Lansing. 

Lamed  Carter  &  Co Detroit. 

La  Salle  Copper  Co Calumet. 

George  E.  Laurence  &  Son Lansing. 

Launum  Mining  Co Calumet. 

William  O.  Lee  Co.,  W.  O.  Lee Port  Huron. 

Leisen  &  Henes  Brewing  Co Menominee. 

Lentz  Table  Co Nashville. 

Lewis-Geer  Manufacturing  Co.,  Willard  W.  Geer,  vice  presi- 
dent  Ypsilanti. 

Lloyd  Construction  Co.,  E.  F.  Lloyd,  president Detroit. 

Loretto  Iron  Co Loretto. 

Lufkin  Rule  Co Saginaw. 


EMPLOYERS   WHO   ASSISTED.  229 

Hugh  Lyons  &  Co Lansing. 

McClure  Co Saginaw. 

McCord  Manufacturing  Co Detroit. 

Macey  Co Grand  Rapida. 

Manistee  Brick  Co.,  H.  W.  Marsh Manistee. 

Manistee  Manufacturing  Co Manistee. 

Robert  K.  Mann  Lumber  Co Muskegon. 

Markham  Air  Rifle  Co Plymouth. 

Marshall  Furnace  Co Marshall. 

Menominee  &  Marinette  Light  &  Traction  Co Menominee. 

Menominee  River  Brewing  Co.,  Frank  Erdlitz,  secretary- 
treasurer Menominee. 

William  B.  Mershon  &  Co Saginaw. 

Mershon  Eddy  Parker  Co Saginaw. 

Michigan  Alkali  Co Wyandotte. 

Michigan  Coal  Operators'  Association,  George  M.  Hum- 
phrey, attorney Saginaw. 

Michigan  Lubricator  Co Detroit. 

Michigan  Malleable  Iron  Co Detroit. 

Michigan  Milling  Co. Ann  Arbor. 

Michigan  Motor  Castings  Co Flint. 

Michigan  Northern  Power  Co.,  L.  C.  Mackenzie Sault  Ste.  Marie. 

Michigan  Optical  Co Detroit. 

Michigan  Screw  Co Lansing. 

Michigan  Steel  Casting  Co Detroit. 

Michigan  Stove  Co.,  Gray  H.  Barbour,  vice  president  and 
general  manager Detroit. 

Mitchell  Bros.  Co Cadillac. 

Mitts  &  Merrill Saginaw. 

Mohawk  Mining  Co Mohawk. 

Monroe  Glass  Co Monroe. 

Moore  Plow  &  Implement  Co Greenville. 

Morgan  &  Wright,  A.  A.  Templeton,  vice  president Detroit. 

Morgan  Lumber  &  Cedar  Co Foster  City. 

Morley  Bros Saginaw. 

D.  K.  Moses  &  Co Sault  Ste.  Marie. 

Munising,  Marquette  &  Southeastern  Ry.  Co Marquette. 

Murphy  Power  Co Detroit. 

Muskegon  Boiler  Works,  Samuel  C.  Eyke,  secretary Muskegon. 

Muskegon  Knitting  Mills  and  Muskegon  Office  Cabinet  Co., 
Louis  P.  Haight Muskegon. 

Muskegon  Motor  Specialties  Co Muskegon. 

Muskegon  Traction  and  Lighting  Co Muskegon. 

Nadeau  Bros Nadeau. 

National  Bank  of  Flint Flint. 

National  Can  Co Detroit. 

National  Spring  &  Wire  Co Albion. 

Nelson  Bros.  Co Saginaw. 

New  Arcadian  Copper  Co Houghton. 

New  Baltic  Copper  Co Houghton. 

Newton  &  Haggerty  Ladder  Co.,  C.  H.  Easton,  secretary ...  Ann  Arbor. 

New  Way  Motor  Co .Lansing. 

Northwestern  Cooperage  &  Lumber  Co Gladstone. 

Novo  Engine  Co Lansing. 

Oakland  Motor  Car  Co Pontiac. 

M.  D.  Olds Cheboygan. 

Osceola  Consolidated  Mining  Co Calumet. 

Oval  Wood  Dish  Co Traverse  City." 

Owosso  Casket  Co Owosso. 

Owosso  Creamery  Co Owosso. 

Owosso  Manufacturing  Co Owosso. 

Owosso  Sugar  Co Lansing. 

Packard  Motor  Car  Co.,  F.  R.  Robinson,  comptroller Detroit. 

Page  Woven  Wire  Fence  Co.,  John  E.  Carr,  treasurer Adrian. 

Paige-Detroit  Motor  Car  Co.,  B.  C.  Young,  assistant  treas- 
urer  Detroit. 

A.  B.  Park  Co...  ..Adrian. 


230  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Pearce  Hardware  &  Furniture  Co.  (Ltd.) Lake  Linden. 

Peerless  Wire  Fence  Co Adrian. 

Penberthy  Injector  Co Detroit. 

Peninsular  Milling  Co.,  C.  J.  De  Roo,  manager Flint. 

Peninsular  Portland  Cement  Co Jackson. 

Pennsylvania  Salt  Manufacturing  Co Wyandotte. 

People's  Ice  Co Detroit. 

Pere  Marquette  Railroad  Co.,  bills,  Parker,  Shields,  & 
Brown,  general  attorneys Detroit. 

Peterson  Brewing  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Phoenix  Brewing  Co Bay  City. 

James  Pickands  &  Co.  (Ltd.) .- Marquette. 

Pontiac  Brush  Co Pon  tiac . 

Portage  Coal  &  Dock  Co Hancock. 

Port  Huron  Engine  &  Thrasher  Co Port  Huron. 

Port  Huron  Gas  Co Port  Huron. 

Port  Huron  Light  &  Power  Co Port  Huron. 

Prescott  Co Menominee. 

Quality  Broom  Factory Flint. 

Randall  Lumber  &  Coal  Co Flint. 

Ranney  Refrigerator  Co Greenville. 

Raynor  &  Taylor Detroit. 

Republic  Iron  &  Steel  Co.,  Richard  Jones,  jr.,  general 
attorney Negaunee. 

Richardson  Lumber  Co Alpena. 

Riverview  Coated  Paper  Co.,  F.  Pagenstuber,  secretary Kalamazoo. 

Roberts  Brass  Manufacturing  Co.,  W.  H.  Roberts,  secretary- 
treasurer  Detroit. 

Roe  Stephens  Manufacturing  Co.,  T.  P.  Stephens,  secretary 
and  assistant  treasurer Detroit. 

E.  P.  Rowe  Co Bad  Axe. 

Russell  Motor  Axle  Co North  Detroit. 

A.  H.  Ryckman Saginaw. 

Saginaw  Manufacturing  Co.,  Arnold  Boutell,  secretary- 
treasurer Saginaw. 

Saginaw  Plate  Glass  Co Saginaw. 

St.  Johns  Table  Co Cadillac. 

St.  Louis  Copper  Co Calumet. 

Louis  Sands  Salt  &  Lumber  Co.,  George  M.  Clifton,  secretay  .Manistee. 

Sanitary  Knitting  Co Grand  Rapids. 

San  Telmo  Cigar  Manufacturing  Co Detroit. 

Charles  A.  Sauer  &  Co Ann  Arbor. 

Sears  &  Nichols  Co Pentwater. 

Seeman  &  Peters Saginaw. 

Shaw  Electric  Crane  Co Muskegon. 

Sheffield  Car  Co.,  Edward  B.  Linsley,  treasurer  and  general 
manager Three  Rivers. 

C.  C.  Smith  Boat  &  Engine  Co Algonac. 

Smith  Bridgman  Co Flint. 

Solvay  Process  Co.,  J.  D.  Sanders,  assistant  manager Detroit. 

Sparks  Withington  Co.,  W.  J.  Corbett Jackson. 

Spietz  &  Worch  Co Detroit. 

Standard  Computing  Scale  Co.  (Ltd.) Detroit. 

Standard  Paper  Co Kalamazoo. 

Frederick  Stearns  &  Co.,  Walter  H.  Blome,  chief  pharma- 
cist  Detroit. 

Paul  Steketee  &  Sons Grand  Rapids. 

Stephenson  Charcoal  Iron  Co. Marquette. 

Sterling  &  Skinner  Manufacturing  Co Detroit. 

W.  C.  Sterling  &  Son  Co Monroe. 

Eugene  Stewart Battle  Creek. 

The  W.  F.  Stewart  Co Flint. 

W.  F.  Stimpson  Co Detroit. 

Nathan  J.  Stone Petoskey . 

Sunday  Lake  Iron  Co Wakefield. 

Superior  Copper  Co Calumet. 

Superior  Seating  Co.,  C.  Maring Muskegon. 


EMPLOYEES  WHO  ASSISTED.  231 

Tamarack  Mining  Co Calumet. 

F.  Thoman  Milling  Co Lansing. 

0.  &  W.  ThumCo GrandRapids. 

J.  B.  Timberlake  &  Sons  (Inc.) Jackson. 

Travelers  Insurance  Co.,  E.  S.  Raymond,  manager  of  De- 
troit branch Detroit. 

Traverse  City  Iron  Works Traverse  City. 

Union  Carbide  Co.,  Soo  Works,  C.  T.  Ayres,  works  manager.  .Sault  Ste.  Marie. 

Union  Steam  Pump  Co.,  C.  A.  Stuck,  sales  department Battle  Creek. 

United  Home  Telephone  Co Ludington. 

United  States  Frumentum  Co Detroit. 

United  Sates  Gas  Machine  Co .Muskegon. 

University  of  Michigan,  Shirley  W.  Smith,  secretary Ann  Arbor. 

Upjohn  Co Kalamazoo. 

Verona  Mining  Co Palatka. 

Victoria  Copper  Mining  Co.,  James  P.  Graves,  treasurer. .  .Ontonagon. 

Vinton  Co Detroit. 

Voight  Milling  Co Grand  Rapids. 

G.  von  Platen Boyne  City. 

Wakefield  Iron  Co Wakefield. 

Wells  Fargo  &  Co Throughout  State. 

H.  G.  Wendland  &  Co Bay  City. 

L.  E.  Weng  &  Son Da^gett. 

Werner  &  Pfleiderer  Co .Saginaw. 

West  Michigan  Furniture  Co Holland. 

Weston-Mott  Co Flint. 

What  Cheer  Coal  Mining  Co.,  A.  N.  Fancher Bay  City. 

W.  H.  White  Co.,  W.  L.  Martin,  secretary Boyne  City. 

White  Pine  Copper  Co Calumet. 

Wickwire  Mining  Co .Iron  River. 

John  Widdicomb  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Widdicomb  Furniture  Co.,  William  Widdicomb,  president.  .Grand  Rapids. 

Wilhelm  Furniture  Co Sturgis. 

Williams  Bros.  Co Cadillac. 

Wilmarth  Show  Case  Co Grand  Rapids. 

C.  K.  Wilson  Body  Co Detroit. 

Winona  Copper  Co Winona. 

Wisconsin  Land  &  Lumber  Co Hermansville. 

Wolverine  Brass  Works Grand  Rapids. 

Wolverine  Portland  Cement  Co.,  E.  R.  Root,  secretary- 
treasurer Coldwater. 

Woodard  Furniture  Co Owosso. 

Worcester  Lumber  Co.  (Ltd.) Chassell. 

World's  Star  Knitting  Co Bay  City. 

Otto  A.  Wurm  &  Co Detroit. 

Wyandot  Copper  Co.,  F.  L.  Van  Orden,  superintendent — Houghton. 

Wyandotte  Portland  Cement  Co Detroit. 

Wyandotte  Terminal  Railroad  Co Wyandotte. 

Wyandotte  Transportation  Co Wyandotte. 

Yeomans- Diver  Co „  .Detroit. 

Zeeland  Furniture  Manufacturing  Co Zeeland. 

Zeeland  Milling  Co Zeeland. 

NEVADA. 

Adams-McGill  Co Ely. 

Austin  &  Macpherson Sparks. 

John  S.  Cook  &  Co Goldfield. 

Copper  National  Bank East  Ely. 

Cotton-Turner  Cigar  Co Reno. 

Eagle  Drug  Co.  (Inc.),  W.  A.  Brown,  secretary Winnemucca. 

Ely  Securities  Co East  Ely. 

Ely  Townsite  Co East  Ely. 

Ely  Water  Co East  Ely. 

D.  J.  Fitzgerald. Tonopah. 

Gray,  Reid,  Wright  Co Reno. 

Hatch  Leasing  Co.,  N.  P.  R.  Hatch,  secretary-treasurer National. 

Hilltop  Milling  &  Reduction  Co Hilltop. 


232  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

C.  L.  Ketzmeyer Carson. 

Kimberly  Consolidated  Mines  Co Hilltop. 

McGill  National  Bank McGill. 

Nevada  Northern  Railway  Co East  Ely. 

Riverside  Mill  Co Reno. 

Steptoe  Hotel  Co East  Ely. 

Tranter  &  Staley  (Inc.) Reno. 

NEW   HAMPSHIRE. 

Boscawen  Mills,  Samuel  C.  Eastman,  treasurer Concord. 

Boulia-Gorrell  Lumber  Co Lakeport. 

Dartmouth  Press Hanover. 

Dexter  Richards  &  Sons  Co.,  W.  F.  Richards,  president Newport. 

Fisk  Paper  Co.,  Frederick  S.  Leonard,  agent Hinsdale. 

Goodell  Co.,  David  H.  Goodell,  president Antrim. 

Henneberry  &  Halligan,  John  Henneberry Concord. 

Hillsboroough  Mills,  E.  J.  Abbott Wilton. 

F.  M.  Hoyt  Shoe  Co.,  T.  E.  Cunningham,  vice  president.  .Manchester. 

New  England  Granite  Works,  George  A.  Ledward Concord. 

New  Hampshire  Spinning  Mills Penacook. 

Pacific  Mills,  H.  W.  Owen,  general  superintendent Dover. 

Frank  R.  Prescott Meredith. 

Proctor  Bros.  &  Co Nashua. 

Somersworth  Foundry  Co Salmon  Falls. 

NEW  JERSEY. 

Algonquin  Co Passaic. 

Aristo  Co Belleville. 

Atlantic  Vehicle  Co Newark. 

Barlow  Foundry  Co Newark. 

Barrett  Manufacturing  Co.,  Geo.  C.  Russell,  manager Elizabeth. 

Barrett   Manufacturing   Co.,    A.    H.    Searles,    purchasing 

agent Shady  Side. 

Bayonne  Supply  Co Bayonne. 

Bayway  Chemical  Co Elizabeth. 

Daniel  Bermes  Boulevard  Brewery Town  of  Union. 

A.  Bernhardt  &  Co Newark. 

Brighton  Mills,  Wm.  L.  Lyall,  treasurer Passaic. 

W.  C.  Crosby Jamesburg. 

Cumberland  Glass  Manufacturing  Co.,  C.  W.  Shoemaker, 

treasurer Bridgeton. 

Diehl  Manufacturing  Co Elizabeth. 

The  Doherty  &  Wadsworth  Co Paterson. 

W.  S.  Eastlack Camden. 

Enterprise  Wall  Paper  Co Collingswood. 

Christian  Feigenspan,  a  corporation Newark. 

Ferracute  Machine  Co Bridgeton. 

Florence  Iron  Works Florence. 

B.  Frank  Fox Hackettstown. 

Garfield  Worsted  Mills Garfield. 

Gera  Mills Passaic. 

Oliver  H.  Guttridge  Co , Atlantic  City. 

Charles  Hamburger Minotola. 

Joseph  Hensler  Brewing  Co Newark. 

O.  J.  Hammell  Co Pleasantville. 

Hammerschlag  Manufacturing  Co Garfield. 

Harding  Box  Co Paterson. 

Hardright  Brush  Co Belleville. 

Ingersoll-Rand  Co.,  George  R.  Elder,  vice  president  and 

manager Phillipsburg. 

Allen  B.  Laing  Co Plainfield. 

Lake  Chemical  Co New  Brunswick. 

Lembeck-Betz  Eagle  Brewing  Co Jersey  City. 

John  Lucas  &  Co.  (Inc.),  Ernest  T.  Trigg,  vice  president 

and  general  manager Gibbsboro. 


EMPLOYERS   WHO   ASSISTED.  233 

The  Ludlow  Hub  Co Peapack. 

Thomas  Maddock's  Sons  Co.,  W.  W.  Anderson,  office  man- 
ager   Trenton. 

Manheimer  &  Sherman Camden. 

Marbleoid  Co.,  F.  Maxwell  Page,  secretary New  Durham. 

Merck  &  Co Rahway. 

New  York  &  New  Jersey  Well  Co.,  H.  Estes Ridgewood. 

George  Ogden  &  Son Cape  May  City. 

Orange  Brewery Orange. 

Original  Trenton  Cracker  Co Trenton. 

Osborne  &  Marsellis  Co Montclair. 

Pantasote  Leather  Co.,  E.  W.  Outerbridge,  treasurer Passaic. 

Passaic  Cotton  Mills Passaic. 

Paterson  Brewing  &  Malting  Co Paterson. 

Thomas  Peppier  &  Son Hightstown. 

H.  L.  Rapp Carpenterville. 

Augustus  Reeve Camden. 

John  A.  Roebling's  Sons  Co.,  F.  W.  Roebling,  jr.,  engineer- 
ing department Trenton. 

Schlitz  Hotel,  S.  Ojserkis  Co Atlantic  City. 

Silver-Chamberlin  Co Clayton. 

Sleeth  Manufacturing  Co.,  G.  C.  Sleeth,  president Belleville. 

Otis  M.  Townsend Ocean  City. 

Turner  Machine  Co Newark. 

United  States  Steel  Corporation,  Raynal  C.  Boiling,  gen- 
eral solicitor Trenton. 

Van  Ness  Bros Paterson. 

Victor  Talking  Machine  Co.,  E.  R.  Johnson,  president, 
Ralph  L.  Freemen,  assistant  secretary Camden. 

Wharton  Steel  Co Wharton. 

OHIO. 

Abbott  Manufacturing  Co Cleveland. 

W.  J.  Albrecht Toledo. 

Alliance  Clay  Product  Co Alliance. 

Alliance  Gas  &  Power  Co Alliance. 

American  Art  Works . Coshocton. 

American  Book  Co.,  W.  B.  Thalh^imer,  managing  director.  .Cincinnati. 

American  Fixture  &  Manufacturing  Co Troy. 

American  Steel  Foundries,  W.  H.  Cameron,  manager  casu- 
alty department Alliance. 

American  Straw  Board  Co Akron. 

O.  Armleder  Co Cincinnati. 

Ashtabula  Paper  &  Twine  Co.,  W.  F.  Hewins,  manager Ashtabula. 

Atkins  &  Pearce  Manufacturing  Co Cincinnati. 

Aultman  &  Taylor  Machinery  Co.,  G.  P.  Alexander,  treas- 
urer  Mansfield. 

Baldwin  Co. ,  G.  W.  Armstrong,  jr. ,  president Cincinnati. 

Bankers'  Publishing  Co.,  T.  M.  Thomas,  president Toledo. 

E.  Becker  Brewing  Co Lancaster. 

Beckett  Paper  Co Hamilton. 

Bimel  Buggy  Co.,  T.  M.  Miller,  general  manager  and  treas- 
urer   * Sidney. 

F.  BissellCo.,  Ed.  B.  Terry,  controller Toledo. 

Black  Diamond  Co Columbus. 

H.  Black  Co .Cleveland. 

Brier  Hill  Steel  Co. ,  J.  E.  Parker,  secretary Youngstown. 

Brown  Lumber  Co.,  F.  A.  Brown,  general  manager Massillon. 

The  Buckeye  Steel  Castings  Co.,  S.  P.  Bush,  president  and 

general  manager Columbus. 

Buckeye  Twist  Drill  Co Alliance. 

Busy  Bee  Candy  Kitchen  Co Columbus. 

W.  P.  Callahan  Co Dayton. 

The  Philip  Carey  Manufacturing  Co Lockland. 

Central  Union  Telephone  &  Telegraph  Co Cleveland. 

Cincinnati  Milling   Machine  Co.,  C.   Wood  Walter,  vice 

president  and  secretary Cincinnati. 


284  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Cleveland-Cliffs  Iron  Co.,  R.  C.  Mann,  auditor Cleveland. 

Cleveland  Foundry  Co.,  D.  C.  Lowles,  manager  sevice 
department Cleveland. 

Cleveland  Furnace  Co.,  C.  Birdsall  Smith,  treasurer Cleveland. 

Cleveland  Hardware  Co.,  E.  E.  Adams,  general  superin- 
tendent  Cleveland. 

Cleveland  Steel  Co Cleveland. 

Colin  Gardner  Paper  Co Middletown. 

Colonial  Pressed  Brick  Co Mogadore. 

Columbus  Buggy  Co.,  G.  J.  Macy,  auditor Columbus. 

Columbus  Grove  Brick  &  Tile  Co.,  D.  M.  Allen Columbus  Grove. 

Cooks  Bros.  Decorating  Co.,  Max  Cooks,  secretary Cleveland. 

C.  &  G.  Cooper  Co.,  D.  B.  Kirks,  vice  president Mount  Vernon. 

Crestline  Manufacturing  Co Crestline. 

Crume  Brick  Co Dayton. 

Dalzell  Bros.  Co Youngstown. 

Dayton  Art  Glass  Works Dayton. 

Dayton  Biscuit  Co Dayton. 

Deforest  Sheet  &  Tinplate  Co Niles. 

Deisel-Wemmer  Co.,  R.  J.  Plate,  secretary-treasurer Lima. 

Delphos  Manufacturing  Co.,  H.  L.  Leilich,  president Delphog. 

Donovan  Wire  &  Iron  Co Toledo. 

Dover  Fire  Brick  Co Cleveland. 

East  Liverpool  Brick  Manufacturing  Co East  Liverpool. 

Ebert  Brewing  Co Ironton. 

George  M.  Eidt Tiffin. 

Electric  Auto  Lite  Co Toledo. 

Electric  Products  Co Cleveland. 

Elyria,  Iron  &  Steel  Co Elyria. 

Empire  Rolling  Mills  Co Cleveland. 

Estate  Stove  Co Hamilton. 

Faulk  Bros.  Co East  Liverpool. 

Faultless  Rubber  Co.,  I.  L.  Miller,  secretary Ashland. 

Favorite  Stove  &  Range  Co.,  Charles  C.  Jelleff,  purchasing 
agent Piqua. 

Ferro  Machine  &  Foundry  Co.,  C.  Oglebay,  president Cleveland. 

J.  J.  Fleck Tiffin. 

William  Flood  Co Cleveland. 

Florentine  Pottery  Co Chillicothe. 

Fowler  &  Palmer Bellefontaine. 

Louis  G.  Freeman  Co.,  Louis  G.  Freeman,  president Cincinnati. 

French  &  Hecht Springfield. 

Fry  Bros.  &  Co Cincinnati. 

Gallon  Handle  &  Manufacturing  Co Galion. 

Galion  Metallic  Vault  Co Galion. 

Gem  Coal  Co Nelsonville. 

Gendron  Wheel  Co.,  Charles  R.  Wilhelm,  treasurer Toledo. 

Girard  Iron  Co Girard. 

A.  C.  Gledhill  Lumber  Co Galion. 

Gledhill  &  Krine  Lumber  Co Crestline 

Globe-Wernicke  Co Cincinnati. 

Goodyear  Tire  &  Rubber  Co Akron. 

Graham  Milling  Co Lancaster. 

Grant  Hospital  Co Columbus. 

Great  Lakes  Engineering  Works Ashtabula. 

Halle  Bros.  Co Cleveland. 

Hall-Van  Gorder  Co Cleveland. 

Hamilton  Foundry  &  Machine  Co Hamilton. 

Hampden  Watch  Co Canton. 

W.  S.  Hawker  Manufacturing  Co Dayton. 

Helmet  Co Cincinnati. 

Huber  Manufacturing  Co Marion. 

Hist  Potato  Machinery  Co Alliance. 

Hocking  Valley  Products  Co Columbus. 

Samuel  J.  Hoerner  &  Co Dayton. 

F.  Hohlfelder  Co.,  Alfred  J.  Kroenke,  secretary  and  general 
manager * Cleveland. 


EMPLOYERS   WHO   ASSISTED.  235 

Home  Brewing  Co Canton. 

Home  Telephone  Co Chillicothe. 

Hooven  &  Allison  Co Xenia. 

Hoyle  &  Scott Cambridge. 

W.  A.  Hunt Cambridge. 

Harry  B.  Hursh Mansfield. 

Ironton  Lumber  Co Ironton. 

Iron  ton  Portland  Cement  Co.,  A.  C.  Steece,  treasurer  and 
general  manager Ironton. 

Jeffrey  Manufacturing  Co Columbus. 

Joseph  &  Feiss  Co Cleveland. 

Joel  Kennedy  &  Son Cincinnati. 

James  Kidney  Co Cincinnati. 

Kittelberger  Electric  Co Akron. 

Conrad  Krause Cleveland. 

H.  Kruse  Show  Case  Co Cincinnati. 

Lake  Shore  &  Michigan  Southern  Railway  Co.,  R.  J.  Cowin, 
agent,  D.  T.  Murray,  superintendent Cleveland. 

Lancaster  Glass  Co Lancaster. 

Lancaster  Leather  Co Lancaster. 

Roderick  Lean  Manufacturing  Co Mansfield. 

Leidecker  Tool  Co Marietta. 

Libbey  Glass  Co.,  J.  D.  Robinson,  secretary Toledo. 

Lima  Packing  Co Lima. 

J.  W.  Luther Cleveland. 

Lynn-Superior  Co Cincinnati. 

McCaskey  Register  Co.,  F.  E.  Henry,  jr.,  auditor Alliance. 

Marietta  Chair  Co Marietta. 

Marietta  Stone  Co Marietta. 

Marion  Steam  Shovel  Co.,  M.  A.  Pickering,  superintendent 
of  time Marion. 

Massillon  Wire  Basket  Co Massillon. 

Mead  Pulp  &  Paper  Co.,  R.  T.  Houk,  secretary Chillicothe. 

Middletown  Artificial  Ice  Co.,  A.  Bachmann,  secretary- 
treasurer Middletown. 

Milburn  Wagon  Co Toledo. 

Moore  Oil  Co Cincinnati. 

Murbach  Coal  Co Elyria. 

National  Supply  Co.,  Charles  R.  Clapp,  secretary- treasurer.. Toledo. 

Nelson-Myers  Co West  Manchester. 

Newark  Ohio  Furniture  Co Newark. 

A.  T.  Nye  &  Son  Co Marietta. 

Ober  Manufacturing  Co Chagrin  Falls. 

Ohio  Confection  Co Cleveland. 

Ohio  Motor  Co Sandusky. 

Ohio  Nut  &  Bolt  Co Berea. 

Ohio  Quarries  Co.,  F.  D.  Kellogg,  secretary- treasurer Cleveland. 

Ohio  Seamless  Tube  Co Shelby. 

Ohio  Steel  Foundry  Co Lima. 

Ohio  Varnish  Co.,  J.  W.  McKichnie,  auditor Cleveland. 

Ohio  &  Western  Pennsylvania  Dock  Co.,  R.  F.  Grant, 
general  counsel Cleveland. 

M.  Ohmers'  Sons  Co Dayton. 

Orrville  Bedding  Co OrrviUe. 

Patterson  Foundry  &  Machine  Co East  Liverpool. 

Peerless  Paper  Box  Manufacturing  Co.,  E.  A.  Roege Cleveland. 

Peters  &  Herron  Dash  Co Columbus. 

Philadelphia  Rubber  Works  Co.,  J.  S.  Lowman,  vice- 
president Akron. 

George  E.  Pomeroy  Co.,  George  E.  Pomeroy Toledo. 

Portsmouth  Brewing  &  Ice  Co.,  Paul  Esselborn,  president 
and  treasurer Portsmouth. 

Ralston  Steel  Car  Co.,  J.  S.  Ralston,  president Columbus. 

Rice  &  Hutchins  Cincinnati  Co Cincinnati. 

S.  W.  Robinson  &  Son  Co Columbus. 

Rodefer  Glass  Co.,  C.  M.  Rodefer,  owner Bellaire. 

A.  I.  Root  Co.,  J.  T.  Calvert,  treasurer Medina. 

Russell  &  Co Massillon. 


236  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

St.  Marys  Drilling  Co St.  Marys. 

Sears  &  Nichols  Co Chillicothe. 

Seiss  Manufacturing  Co Toledo. 

Selby  Shoe  Co Portsmouth. 

Shartle  Bros.  Machinery  Co Middletown. 

Shaw  &  Welty  Shirt  Co Zanesville. 

Charles  Shem  &  Sons Alliance. 

J.  Simon  &  Co Cincinnati. 

Sommer  Motor  Co Bucyrus. 

Southern  Wheel  Stock  Co Iron  ton. 

Star  Brewing  Co Minster. 

Sterling  Grind  ing  Wheel  Co.,  George  S.  Tillotson,  manager.  .Tiffin. 

Edwin  A.  Stevens  Co Cleveland. 

G.  S.  Stewart  Co Norwalk. 

Stockham  Co Portsmouth. 

Straitsville  Impervious  Brick  Co New  Straitsville. 

Sullivan  Printing  Works  Co Cincinnati. 

Superior  Foundry  Co Cleveland. 

Superior  Portland  Cement  Co Superior. 

Swink  Printing  Press  Co.,  H.  L.  Leilich,  president Delphos. 

John  Theobald  &  Son Cincinnati. 

Thew  Automatic  Shovel  Co.,  F.  A.  Smythe Lorain. 

Tiffin  Hoop  Co Tiffin. 

Tiffin  Wagon  Co.,  W.  K.  Shelly,  secretary  and  manager Tiffin. 

William  Tod  Co Youngstown. 

I.  G.  Tolerton  &  Son Alliance. 

Tool  Steel  Gear  &  Pinion  Co Cincinnati. 

Troy  Carriage  Sunshade  Co Troy. 

Union  Rolling  Mill  Co Cleveland. 

United  States  Malleable  Iron  Co Toledo. 

United  States  Steel  Corporation,  Raynal  C.  Bulling,  general 

solicitor Youngstown. 

Upson  Nut  Co.,  H.  P.  Bingham,  assistant  treasurer Cleveland. 

Virden  Manufacturing  Co Cleveland. 

Wait  Furniture  Co Portsmouth. 

Washington  Ice  Co Washington. 

M.  WerkCo St.  Bernard. 

J.  T.  Weybrecht's  Sons Alliance. 

Whitmer-Jackson  Sash  &  Door  Co Cleveland. 

Wrenn  Paper  Co.,  John  Gibson,  jr.,  treasurer Middletown. 

Yellow  Poplar  Lumber  Co .- Coal  Grove. 

Youngstown  Sheet  &  Tube  Co Youngstown. 

RHODE    ISLAND. 

Charles  E.  Angell Providence. 

Ashaway  Line  &  Twine  Manufacturing  Co.,  A.  J.  Crandall, 

vice  president Ashaway. 

Beaman  &  Smith  Co. ,  E.  A.  Beaman Providence. 

Joseph  Benn  &  Sons  (Inc.) Greystone. 

Berkeley  Co.,  William  Gammell Providence. 

Callender,  McAuslan  &  Troup  Co.,  W.  R.  Callender Providence. 

Collyer  Machine  Co Pawtucket. 

United  States  Cotton  Co.,  David  Grove,  agent Central  Falls. 

Crown  Garage  Co Providence. 

Esmond  Mills,  John  A.  Pearson,  secretary Esmond. 

O.  P.  French  &  Sons  Co Woonsocket. 

Goodwin-Sherman  Motor  Car  Co.  (Inc.) Providence. 

Gorham  Manufacturing  Co Providence. 

J.  C.  Hall  Co Providence. 

William  H.  Haskell  Manufacturing  Co Pawtucket. 

Jenckes  Spinning  Co Pawtucket. 

Jacob  &  0.  La  Salle Pawtucket. 

B.  Morgan Newport. 

New  England  Butt  Co Providence. 

New  England  Coal  Co Woonsocket. 

James  E.  O  'Connor Providence. 

L.  F.  Pease  Co.  (Inc.) Providence. 


EMPLOYERS   WHO   ASSISTED.  237 

Providence  Dyeing,  Bleaching  &  Calendering  Co Providence. 

Providence  E ngineering  Works Providence. 

Rhode  island  Label  Works,  Fred  Talcott,  proprietor Providence. 

Rhode  Island  Rug  Works Providence. 

Benjamin  F.  Tanner  Co Newport. 

WASHINGTON. 

City  of  Aberdeen,  P.  F.  Clark,  city  clerk Aberdeen. 

American  Electric  Co.,  J.  R.  Bosch,  manager Seattle. 

American  Portable  House  Co.,  Charles  M.  Howe,  secretary.  .Seattle. 

Anacortes  Water  Co.,  Douglass  Allmond,  president  and  man- 
ager  Anacortea. 

Kan  A.  Anderson  Sheet  Metal  Works Tacoma. 

Atlas  Foundry  &  Machine  Co Tacoma. 

Seth  A.  Atwood  Paint  &  Wall  Paper  Co. Bellingham. 

Automatic  Sprinkler  Co.  of  America,  Philip  Gearhart,  con- 
tracting agent Seattle. 

A.  J.  Bailey Seattle. 

Bankers'  Printing  Co. ,  F.  G.  Drew,  president Seattle. 

Bayside  Iron  Works Everett. 

Belcher  Mining  Co.,  W.  Anderson Republic. 

Bellingham  Livery  &  Transfer  Co South  Bellingham. 

Bellingham  Truck  Co , Bellingham. 

Belt  Line  Shingle  Co.,  M.  J.  Carter,  secretary Seattle. 

C.  G.  Betts  Co Spokane. 

Blaine  Steam  Laundry,  S.  R.  Tharp,  proprietor Blaine. 

Blaine  Water  Co.,  J.  S.  Crilly,  manager Blaine. 

Bolcom  Mills  (Inc.) Seattle. 

Bolcom-Vanderhoof  Logging  Co.,  G.  A.  Strouse Seattle. 

Frank  Brockman Seattle. 

George  Broom Seattle. 

S.  E.  Brown  &  Co Seattle. 

Buchanan  Lumber  Co Olympia. 

H.  J.  Burns Spokane. 

Burpee  &  Letson  (Ltd.),  C.  B.  Burpee,  president-manager. .  .South  Bellingham. 

Burr  Electric  Co. ,  M.  Burr Spokane. 

Butler  Construction  Co.,  W.  T.  Butler,  manager .Seattle. 

Butler  Lumber  Co • Belleville. 

Byrne-Turner  Co Bellingham. 

Canyon  Lumber  Co Everett. 

Carstens  Packing  Co Tacoma. 

Cascade  Laundry  Co Spokane. 

Central  Mill  Co Tacoma. 

Clark  Creek  Logging  Co Kelso. 

Clarke  County  Abstract  &  Loan  Co Vancouver. 

dayman  Candy  Co.  (Inc.),  Margaret  dayman Spokane. 

Climax  Shingle  Co -  Ferndale. 

Clipper  Shingle  Co -Clipper. 

Clyde  Warehouse  Co Walla  Walla.    . 

Coast  Printing  Service  (Inc.),  F.  V.  Van  Dusen,  president..  .Seattle. 

Coats-Fordney  Logging  Co Aberdeen. 

Colson  Construction  Co.,  George  B.  Worley Seattle. 

Columbia  Brewing  Co Tacoma. 

Columbia  Contract  Co Camas. 

Colville  Examiner Colville. 

Commercial  Bindery  &  Printing  Co.  (Inc.),  G.  W.  Anderson, 
president-manager Tacoma. 

J.  E.  Connolly Shelton. 

Cornell  Bros Tacoma. 

Crab  Creek  Lumber  Co North  Yakima. 

Creech  Bros.  Lumber  Co Raymond. 

Creston  Union  Grain  Co Creston. 

U.  G.  Crisp Garfield. 

William  M.  Curtis  Co.,  William  M.  Curtis,  president Seattle. 

Davenport  Grain  Co.,  W.  0.  Mansfield,  manager Davenport. 

Day  Lumber  Co.,  C.  C.  Bronson,  secretary-treasurer Seattle. 


288  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Dayton  Steam  Laundry Dayton. 

S.  P.  Dixon  &  Co.,  C.  E.  Remsbere,  vice-president Seattle. 

Dodwell  Dock  &  Warehouse  Co.  (Inc. ) Seattle. 

Doerr-Mitchell  Electric  Co. ,  R.  Doerr Spokane. 

Dole  Lumber  Co Vancouver. 

C.  H.  Driscoll  &  Co.  (Inc.) Sumas. 

E.  I.  du  Pont  de  Nemours  Powder  Co.,  of  Delaware,  J.  P. 

Laffey,  manager Wilmington,  Del. 

Eagle  Bottling  Works Tacoma. 

Eastern  Railway  &  Lumber  Co Centralia. 

Town  of  Eatonville,  Charles  C.  Biggs,  clerk Eaton ville. 

Ebey  Shingle  Co Everett. 

Echo  Valley  &  Colyille  Phone  Co Colville. 

Erickson  Construction  Co.,  C.  E.  Erickson,  secretary Seattle. 

Frank  Everett  &  Co Chehalis. 

.  Everett. 
.Tekoa. 
.  Palouse. 

John  Finn  Metal  Works Seattle. 

FOBS  Electric  Shop Bremerton. 

"E.  L.  French  Co Vancouver. 

Galbraith  &  Son Spokane. 

Garfield  Town  &  Rural  Telephone  Co.,  H.  S.  McClure, 
secretary Garfield. 

General  Railway  Signal  Co.,  George  D.  Morgan,  president- 
treasurer Rochester,  N.  Y. 

Globe  Lumber  Co.  (Inc.),  W.  C.  Miles,  manager Globe. 

A.  M.  Goddard Tacoma. 

Orrin  S .  Good Spokane. 

Gould  Lumber  Co Seattle. 

August  Granstrand Walla  Walla. 

Grays  Harbor  Lodging  Co. ,  C.  H.  Shutt,  president Aberdeen. 

Green  Mill  Co.  (Inc.),  W.  S.  Green,  president Quilcene. 

Greenough  Bros.  Co.  (Inc.) Spokane. 

George  P.  Haley Seattle. 

A.  Hambach  Co Seattle. 

Hamilton  Logging  Co.,  William  C.  Butler Everett. 

Hammond  Milling  Co. Seattle. 

Hanford  Irrigation  &  Power  Co Hanford. 

Hartline  Mill  &  Elevator  Co Hartline. 

Haukeli-Hegg  &  Co. ,  G.  R.  Haukeli Aberdeen. 

Lende  Hausen Everson. 

Hemrich  Bros.  Brewing  Co Seattle. 

Hercules  Sandstone  Co Tenino. 

Hibbard-Stewart  Co.  (Inc.),  C.  L.  Hibbard Seattle. 

W.  Foster  Hidden Vancouver. 

Hidden  Bros.,  W.  F.  Hidden Vancouver. 

S.  Hilliard Spokane. 

Hillman  Electric  Co North  Yakima. 

Hillyard  Lumber  Co. ,  Albert  Orr,  secretary Hillyard. 

Home  Telephone  &  Telegraph  Co Spokane. 

Home  Water  &  Power  Co Mount  Vernon, 

Hoquiam  Water  Co.,  A.  G.  Anderson,  secretary Hoquiam. 

J.  E.  Horton Spokane. 

Howard  Spinning Wilbur. 

Independent  Laundry Everett. 

Ingles  Sawmill Lincoln. 

International  Lime  Co Sumas. 

Iowa  Fuel  Co.  (Inc.) Tacoma. 

J.  M.  Jensen.  J.  M.  Jensen,  assistant  postmaster Chehalis. 

Jersey  Creamery  Co Colfax. 

N.  Jerns Bellingham. 

J.  Jorgensen Yacolt. 

Kalama  Local  Telephone  Exchange,  G.  M.  Coffey,  manager.  Kalama. 

Keeslings  Boat  Yard,  C.  C.  Keesling Anacortea. 

F.  Kerr  Folliett Everett. 

Key  City  Light  &  Power  Co Port  Townsend. 


EMPLOYEES   WHO  ASSISTED.  239 

Key  City  Packing;  Co.,  E.  A.  Sims Port  Townsend. 

Kilbourne  &  Clark  Manufacturing  Co Seattle. 

L.  R.  Lambert Shelton. 

G.  M.  Lauridsen Port  Angelea. 

0.  H.  Lee  Shingle  Co Maltby. 

Leland  Lumber  Co Leland. 

Charles  E.  Lind Bellingham. 

A.  G.  Linhoff Seattle. 

G.  P.  Lobberton. North  Yakima. 

Lochslog  Shingle  Co Hartford. 

Lowman  &  Hanford  Co Seattle. 

Loyal  Railway  Co Seattle. 

Lummi  Bay  Packing  Co Bellingham. 

Lynden  Department  Store  (Inc. ),  J.  B.  Banhave,  secretary .  Lynden. 

William  McCush Bellingham. 

J.  W.  McDonald  &  Co Hartline. 

P.  E.  McHugh Tacoma. 

J.  J.  McNerney,  Huff,  secretary Wenatchee. 

George  T.  Maginnis Seattle. 

W.  F.  Manney  &  Co Seattle. 

Marcus  Light  &  Water  Co Marcus. 

Mason  County  Logging  Co Bordeaux. 

J.  G.  Megler&  Co Brookfield. 

Mendota  Coal  &  Coke  Co.,  B.  H.  Johnston Centralia. 

Metcalf  Shingle  Co.,  John  Q.  Harris Kelso. 

Mineral  Lake  Logging  Co Tacoma. 

Model  Steam  Laundry Colfax. 

Monroe  Investment  Co.  (Inc.) Monroe. 

Robert  Moran Rosario. 

Morse  Hardware  Co.  (Inc.) Bellingham. 

Katharine  Murray Ellensbury. 

N .  Nelson Aberdeen. 

Newport  Telephone  Co.,  W.  M.  Anderson Newport. 

Newport  Water  Co Newport. 

Nippon  Lumber  Co Alpine. 

North  Bend  Lumber  Co.,  R.  W.  Virredge,  secretary- 
treasurer Edgewick. 

Northern  Clarke  County  Light  &  Power  Co Yacolt. 

Northern  Coast  Timber  Co Tacoma. 

North  Fort  Logging  Co Ariel. 

Northwest  Hardware  Co Bellingham. 

Northwest  Lumber  Co Seattle. 

North  Western  Lumber  Co Hoquiam. 

North  Yakima  Brewing  &  Malting  Co North  Yakima. 

H.  F.  Norton  Co.  (Inc.) ,. Seattle. 

Oak  Point  Piling  &  Lumber  Co.,  William  J.  Redmond, 
secretary Oak  Point. 

O'Connell  Lumber  Co.,  M.  T.  O'Connell Winlock. 

Ben  Olson  Co '. Tacoma. 

Oso  Logging  Co Oso. 

Olswang  Bros.  &  Co Seattle. 

Olympia  Brewing  Co.,  Peter  S.  Schmidt,  vice  president. .  .Olympia. 

Ostrander  Railway  &  Timber  Co.,  E.  S.  Collins,  president 
and  manager Ostrander. 

Pacific  Box  Co Tacoma. 

Pacific  Car  Co.,  L.  J.  W.  Jones,  president Tacoma. 

Pacific  Coast  Elevator  Co Portland. 

Pacific  Coast  Gypsum  Co Tacoma. 

Pacific  Coast  Stamp  Works,  Charles  Sewell,  secretary- 
treasurer Seattle. 

Pacific  Coast  Steamship  Co.,  J.  C.  Ford,  president Seattle. 

Pacific  Coast  Sirup  Co Seattle. 

Pacific  State  Lumber  Co Tacoma. 

Pacific  Telephone  &  Telegraph  Co Seattle. 

Palace  Barber  Shop Bellingham. 

Palmer  Lumber  &  Manufacturing  Co Chehalis. 

Panhandle  Lumber  Co.  (Ltd.),  0.  N.  Buffrmre,  superin- 
tendent   .  .lone. 


240  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Pearson  Construction  Co Seattle. 

Hans  Pederson Seattle. 

Poison  Logging  Co.,  Alex  Poison,  president Hoquiam. 

Pontiac  Brick  &  Tile  Co.,  D.  Q.  Power Seattle. 

Porey  Manufacturing  Co Hoquiam. 

Prosser  Flour  Mills,  Taylor Prosser. 

Puget  Mill  Co.,  E.  G.  Ames Seattle. 

Puget  Sound  Traction,  Light  &  Power  Co.,  A.  W.  Leonard, 
vice  president Bellingham. 

Puget  Sound  Traction,  Light  &  Power  Co.,  F.  Dabney, 
assistant  treasurer , . .  Seattle. 

Queen  City  Machine  Works,  E.  P.  Ederer,  proprietor Seattle. 

Rathforn  Reduction  Works,  S.  Bradley,  president Republic. 

John  Rausch Vancouver. 

Rautman  Plumbing  &  Heating  Co.,  F.  C.  Newport Seattle. 

Raymond  Water  Co Raymond. 

E.  A.  Reddish  &  Co.  (Inc.) Tacoma. 

Reid  Bros.  Co South  Bellingham. 

Rhodes  Bros.  Co.,  L.  M.  Burnell Seattle. 

Otto  Roseleaf Seattle . 

Roslyn-Cascade  Coal  Co.,  Cyrus  Gates,  treasurer South  Bellingham. 

Roslyn  Fuel  Co Seattle . 

C.  E.  Ross Chewelah. 

St.  Paul  &  Tacoma  Lumber  Co.,  Harrison  C.  Foster,  sec- 
ond vice  president Tacoma. 

Salsich  Lumber  Co ^ McKenna. 

Seattle  Brewing  &  Malting  Co.,  Charles  W.  Loomis,  secre- 
tary   Seattle. 

Seattle  Cap  Manufacturing  Co Seattle. 

Seattle  Construction  &  Dry  Dock  Co Seattle. 

Seattle  Lighting  Co <.. .Seattle. 

Seattle  Machine  Works  (Inc.) Seattle. 

Seattle  Southeastern  Railway  Co Tacoma. 

Sedro-Woolley  Steam  Laundry Sedro-Woolley. 

Shelden's  Lunch,  G.  Shelden,  proprietor Tacoma. 

Shepard  &  Dennis  Transfer  Co Raymond. 

Sherman  Printing  &  Binding  Co Seattle. 

Silver  Lake  Railway  &  Lumber  Co Castle  Rock. 

Simonds  Manufacturing  Co Seattle. 

Dr.  L.  B.  Sims Tacoma. 

Skelly  Lumber  Co.,  L.  E.  Skelly,  secretary-treasurer Laurel. 

S.  E.  Slade  Lumber  Co.,  W.  R.  Mara Aberdeen. 

Grant  Smith  &  Co Seattle. 

Snohomish  Logging  Co.,  Chris  Gilson,  manager Snohomish. 

S.  A.  Soule Frances. 

City  of  South  Bend,  G.  G.  Hall,  city  engineer South  Bend. 

City  of  Spokane Spokane. 

Spokane  Bakery  Co Spokane. 

Standard  Clay  Co Tacoma. 

Standard  Laundry Everett. 

Standard  Oil  Oil  Co.,  John  McLean,  special  agent Seattle. 

Star  Carriage  Co Seattle. 

Stevens  County  Power  &  Light  Co Colville. 

J.  C.  Stitt Bay  View. 

R.  J.  Stoner Centralia. 

O.  H.  Stratton Spokane. 

Suess  Glass  Co Seattle. 

Sunset  Timber  Co Raymond. 

Superior  Portland  Cement  Co Seattle. 

Tacoma  Engraving  Co.,  L.  J.  Brown Tacoma. 

Tacoma  Foundry  &  Machine  Co Tacoma. 

Tacoma  Mill  Co.,  W.  A.  Whitman,  resident  manager Tacoma. 

Tacoma  Ornamental  Iron  Works  (Inc.) Tacoma. 

Tacoma  Smelting  Co.,  H.  Y.  Walker,  manager Tacoma. 

Tacoma  Trading  Co Tacoma. 

Taylor  Mill  Co.. Seattle. 

Tenino  Stone  Co.  (Inc.) Tenino. 


EMPLOYERS   WHO   ASSISTED.  241 

Three  Lakes  Lumber  Co Three  Lakes. 

Trade  Register  (Inc.),  William  R.  Saunders,  secretary  and 
manager .Seattle. 

S.  W.  True Spokane. 

Trout  Lake  Lumber  Co Eatonville 

Trustee  Co.  of  Spokane,  R.  F.  Hanley,  secretary Spokane. 

Tucker  Hanford  &  Co Seattle. 

Tu]l  &Gibbs Spokane. 

W.  A.  Turne^ Tacoma. 

Union  Iron  Worb» Spokane. 

Valley  Construction  Co.,  O.  L.  Hanson,  president North  Yakima. 

J.  A.  Veness  Lumber,  A.  C.  Shines Winlock. 

Vermont  Marble  Co Tacoma. 

B.  H.  Vollans Everett. 

W.  M.  Walker,  W.  M.  Walker North  Yakima. 

Walla  Walla  Brewing  Co Walla  Walla. 

Walla  Walla  Creamery Walla  Walla. 

Ware  Bros.  Co,  T.  B.  Ware,  secretary Spokane. 

Washington  Portland  Cement  Co.,  Arthur  G.  Smith,  sec- 
retary and  general  manager Concrete. 

Washington  Shoe  Manufacturing  Co Seattle. 

Washington  Western  Railway  Co.,  G.  E.  Moore,  general 
manager Three  Lakes. 

Waterville  Railway  Co.,  S.  A.  Calderhead,  manager Waterville. 

G.A.Weber Tacoma. 

J.  T.  West Sumas. 

S .  Westberg  &  Co Steilacoom. 

West  Coast  Lumber  Manufacturers'  Association,  W.  C.  Miles, 
manager Tacoma. 

West  Coast  Wagon  Co Tacoma. 

Western  Soap  Co Spokane. 

R.  M.  Westover,  R.  M.  Westover Everett. 

Wheeler  Reese  Lumber  Co.,  E.  W.  Burnham Tacoma. 

S.  P.  White  &  Son Vancouver. 

White  Bluffs  &  Columbia  River  Telephone  Co White  Bluffs. 

White  Star  Laundry,  Charles  irishman,  manager. Walla  Walla. 

Whitney  Co Seattle . 

Willapa  Electric  Co Raymond. 

Willapa  Lumber  Co.,  F.  C.  Schoemaker,  secretary Raymond. 

Yukon  Lumber  Co.,  A.  V.  Gray,  president Mukilteo. 

Zimmerman  Degen  Shoe  Co Seattle. 

M .  P .  Zindorf Seattle. 

WISCONSIN. 

Ashland  Brewing  Co Ashland. 

Austin,  Fehr  &  Gehrz Milwaukee. 

Badger  Stone  Co Fountain  City. 

George  Banta  Publishing  Co.,  George  Banta,  president. .   .  .Menasha. 

Biersach  and  Niedermeyer  Co Milwaukee. 

Bock,  Meyer  &  Brown Livingston. 

Brandt-Dent  Co Watertown. 

Brown  Bros.  Lumber  Co Rhinelander. 

Brown-Mitcheson  Co. ,  Francis  A.  Brown Marinette. 

Brunet  Falls  Manufacturing  Co Cornell. 

Bucyrus  Co.,  William  W.  Coleman,  president South  Milwaukee. 

Campbell  and  Cameron  Co Oshkosh. 

Canada  Atlantic  Transit  Co.  of  United  States Milwaukee  (Duluth, 

Minn.) 

Chicago,   St.  Paul,  Minneapolis  &  Omaha  Railway  Co., 

James  B .  Sheehan ,  general  solicitor Eau    Claire     (St.     Paul, 

Minn.) 

Con  way  Veneered  Door  and  Mantel  Co Milwaukee. 

Cream  City  Brewing  Co Milwaukee. 

Cream  City  Sash  &  Door  Co Milwaukee. 

Currie  Bros.  Co Milwaukee. 

Cutler-Hammer  Manufacturing  Co Milwaukee. 

30003— S.  Doc.  419, 63-2 16 


242  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

Cutting  &  Thompson  Co Bloomer. 

Davis  Manufacturing  Co Milwaukee. 

Doud,  Sons  &  Co Winona,  Minn. 

Eclipse  Installment  Co Milwaukee. 

Electrical  Supply  Co Madison. 

E.  W.  Ellis  Lumber  Co Grand  Rapids. 

Evinrude  Motor  Co Milwaukee. 

Falk  Co.,  E.  A.  Wurster,  secretary-treasurer Milwaukee. 

Farmers  Threshermen  Co Eau  Galle. 

Federal  MaUeable  Co West  Allia. 

Federal  Rubber  Manufacturing  Co Cudahy. 

Fond  du  Lac  Shirt  &  Overall  Co Fond  du  Lac. 

Fountain-Campbell  Lumber  Co Donald. 

Gem  Hammock  &  Fly-Net  Co Milwaukee. 

Geuder,  Paeschke  &  Frey  Co.,  F.  J.  Frey,  secretary-treas- 
urer   Milwaukee. 

Globe  Seamless  Steel  Tubes  Co '. Milwaukee. 

Wm.  Goodrich  &  Co Milwaukee. 

H.  C.  Graf , Baraboo. 

Chas.  Greisen .... Sturgeon  Bay. 

Hardy-Ryan  Abstract  Co Waukesha. 

Harley  Davidson  Motor  Co Milwaukee. 

Harsh  &  Edmonds  Shoe  Co Milwaukee. 

G.  Heileman  Brewing  Co.,  Thomas  H.  Bailey La  Crosse. 

A.  J.  Hilbert  &  Co Milwaukee. 

M.  Hilty  Lumber  Co Milwaukee. 

Holt  Lumber  Co Oconto. 

Hotel  Blatz,  Munsche  &  Thierbach,  managers Milwaukee. 

Hummel  &  Downing  Co Milwaukee. 

Hussa  Brewing  Co ..... Bangor. 

Joannes  Bros.  Co Green  Bay. 

Kenfield-Lamoreaux  Co Washburn. 

John  B.  A.  Kern  &  Sons Milwaukee. 

Kieckhefer  Box  Co.,  J.  W.  Kieckhefer,  secretary Milwaukee. 

Kiel  Furniture  Co Milwaukee. 

Knapstein  Brewing  Co New  London. 

Koehring  Machine  Co Milwaukee. 

Kremer  Drug  Co Fond  du  Lac. 

La  Crosse  Plow  Co.,  C.  W.  Dickinson,  assistant  secretary. .. La  Crosse. 

Lemke  Electric  Co '. Milwaukee. 

Leona  Garment  Co La  Crosse. 

Loeffelholz  Co Milwaukee. 

Macomber  &  Whyte  Rope  Co.,  Geo.  S.  Whyte,  president... Kenosha. 

Marathon  Paper  Mills  Co Rothschild. 

Mellen  Lumber  Co Mellen. 

Menasha  Wooden  Ware  Co. . . . . Menasha. 

C.  &  J.  Michel  Brewing  Co La  Crosse. 

Milwaukee  Malting  Co .... ... ..... .Milwaukee. 

Modern  Steel  Structural  Co Waukesha. 

Morawetz  Co. Milwaukee. 

National  Box  Co .Milwaukee. 

Northern  Paper  Mills Green  Bay. 

Northwestern  Manufacturing  Co Fort  Atkin son. 

Northwestern  Motor  Institute Milwaukee. 

L.  L.  Olds  Seed  Co Madison. 

Optenberg  Iron  Works 

Oshkosh  Brewing  Co Oshk( 

Oshkosh  Fuel  Co ..Oshkosh. 

Pawling  &  Harnischfeger  Co Milwaukee. 

Patten  Paper  Co.  (Ltd.) Appleton. 

W.  S.  Patterson  Co.,  H.  C.  Getschow,  secretary-treasurer... Appleton. 

Patton  Paint  Co Milwaukee. 

Allan  E.  Peacock ^. . Lake  Geneva. 

Peck-Harare  Manufacturing  Co .". . .Berlin. 

Peoples  Brewing  Co . Oshkosh. 

Phenix  Manufacturing  Co Milwaukee. 

George  Poppert  Manufacturing  Co. North  Milwaukee. 


TRADES   UNIONS   THAT  AIDED.  243 

Power  &  Mining  Machinery  Co Cudahy. 

Racine  Sattley  Co.,  H.  E.  Miles Racine. 

The  William  Rahr  Sons'  Co .Manitowoc. 

Philip  Rothman  &  Co Stevens  Point. 

Schissler  Bros Milwaukee. 

A.  George  Schulz  Co.,  T.  Benj.  Thompson Milwaukee. 

Margaret  Schwalbe Green  Bay. 

Sherwood  &  Me  Williams  (Inc.) Madison. 

A.  O.  Smith  Co.,  B.  Rosing,  superintendent  welfare  depart- 
ment   Milwaukee . 

Smith,  Barnes  &  Strohber  Co.,  E.  M.  Eastman,  manager North  Milwaukee. 

Geo.  H.  Smith  Steel  Casting  Co Milwaukee. 

J.  H.  Smith Milwaukee. 

Southern  Wisconsin  Railway  Co.,  F.  W.  Montgomery,  presi- 
dent  Madison. 

Stegeman  Motor  Car  Co Milwaukee. 

Stolle  Lumber  Co Tripoli. 

Stotzer  Granite  Co Portage. 

Sumner  &  Morris Madison. 

Estate  of  August  Thielke Mayville. 

Thilmany  Pulp  &  Paper  Co >. Kaukauna. 

Thompson  Bros.'  Boat  Manufacturing  Co Peshtigo. 

Tiger  Drill  Manufacturing  Co Beaver  Dam. 

Tower  Clothing  Co.,  Lewis  H.  Larson,  president  and  treas- 
urer  Superior. 

Tuttle  Press  Co Appleton. 

United  States  Glue  Co.,  W.  G.  Hanson,  manager. Milwaukee. 

Valders  Lime  &  Stone  Co Valders. 

F.  Vilins  &  Son Green  Bay. 

Waukesha  Manufacturing  Co Waukesha. 

Wausau  Box  &  Lumber  Co Wausau. 

Wausau  Sulphate  Fibre  Co Mosinee. 

Wells  Dry  Goods  Co Delavan. 

Paul  Wenzel  Co Augusta. 

Westboro  Lumber  Co Westboro. 

Western  States  Envelope  Co Milwaukee. 

Western  Steel  &  Iron  Works De  Pere. 

Wisconsin  Bridge  &  Iron  Co.,  R.  Simmerling North  Milwaukee. 

Wisconsin  Fruit  Package  Co.,  E.  A.  Schmidt Crandon. 

Wisconsin  Furniture  Co Milwaukee. 

Wisconsin  Tissue  Paper  Co Appleton. 

Worden  Allen  Co.,  P.  C.  Burrill Milwaukee. 

TRADES  UNION   REPRESENTATIVES. 

Letters  of  inquiry  as  to  the  operation  of  the  workingmen's  com- 

Eensation  acts  were  addressed  to  the  secretaries  of  the  following  State 
^derations  and  city  central  labor  unions  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor,  and  replies  were  received  from  many  of  them  which  were 
helpful  to  the  committee  in  preparing  this  report: 

AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR. 

STATE  BRANCHES. 

California,  Paul  Scharrenberg San  Francisco. 

Connecticut,  R.  P.  Cunningham Danbury. 

Illinois,  Edwin  R.  Wright Chicago. 

Iowa,  J.  H.  Strief Sioux  City. 

Kansas,  George  B.  Edgell Leavenworth. 

Maryland-District  of  Columbia,  George  M.  Henderson Baltimore. 

Massachusetts,  Martin  T.  Joyce Boston. 

Michigan,  Homer  F.  Waterman .Kalamazoo. 

Minnesota,  W.  E.  McEwen Duluth. 

Nebraska,  W.  A.  Chrisman Omaha. 

New  Hampshire,  J.  J.  Coyne Manchester. 


244  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

New  Jersey,  Henry  F.  Hilfers Newark. 

Ohio,  Harry  D.  Thomas Cleveland. 

Oregon,  Ed.  J.  Stack Portland. 

Rhode  Island,  L.  E.  Hersey Providence. 

Texas,  John  R.  Spencer Waco. 

Washington,  E.  P.  Marsh Everett. 

West  Virginia,  Frank  W.  Snyder Charleston. 

Wisconsin,  J.  J.  Handley Milwaukee. 

CITY  CENTRAL  LABOR  UNIONS. 
ARIZONA. 

Warren  District  Trades  Assembly,  Charles  H.  Smith Bisbee. 

Central  Labor  Council,  George  G.  Waterman Globe. 

Trades  Council,  Nichols  Edwards Phoenix. 

Trades  Assembly,  N.  W.  McGhee Prescott. 

Central  Labor  Union,  W.  J.  Bray Tucson. 

CALIFORNIA. 

Labor  Council,  J.  J.  Alldridge Bakersfield. 

Labor  Council,  C.  W.  Niles Coalinga. 

Federated  Trades  Council,  George  Keeling Eureka. 

Federated  Trades  and  Labor  Council,  F.  P.  Lamoreux Fresno. 

Central  Labor  Council,  L.  W.  Butler Los  Angeles. 

Central  Labor  Council.  Wm;  A.  Spooner Oakland. 

Central  Labor  Union,  H.  A.  Huff Pasadena. 

Central  Labor  Council,  L.  A.  Warner Petaluma. 

Contra  Costa  Central  Labor  Council,  Harry  B.  Wiese Point  Richmond. 

Labor  Council,  Mr.  Gilbert Riverside  County. 

Federated  Trades  Council,  Frank  Cooke Sacramento. 

Tri-City  Central  Labor  Union,  J.  T.  Wilson San  Bernardino. 

Federated  Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Ira  H.  Markwith San  Diego. 

Labor  Council,  John  A.  O'Connell San  Francisco. 

Central  Labor  Council,  F.  J.  Hepp San  Jose. 

Marin  County  Labor  Council,  F.  von  Bima San  Rafael. 

Central  Labor  Council,  John  Walker Santa  Rosa. 

Central  Labor  Council  of  San  Joaquin  County,  George  A. 

Dean Stockton. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  E.  C.  Berry Vallejo. 

CONNECTICUT. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  J.  O'Neill Bridgeport. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Edwin  Daniels Danbury. 

Central  Labor  Union,  James  J.  O'Donnell Derby. 

Central  Labor  Union,  P.  P.  Reilly Hartford. 

Central  Labor  Union,  George  J.  Stanley FerHen. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Carl  A.  Ahlstrom £  ew  Britain. 

Trades  Council,  Joseph  J.  Reilly New  Haven. 

Central  Labor  Union,  George  Goss New  London. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Walter  H.  Spaulding Norwich. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Mrs.  Fannie  J.  Joyce South  Norwalk. 

Central  Labor  Union,  James  F.  Jerman Stamford. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Charles  E.  Iserman Thompsonville. 

Central  Labor  Union,  J.  J.  Houlihan Wallingford. 

Central  Labor  Union,  P.  J.  Lynch Waterbury. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Jos.  W.  Beauchemin Willimantic. 

ILLINOIS. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  C.  E.  Sawyer Alton. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  O.  N.  Ament Aurora. 

Trades  Council,  Harry  E.  Morrow Beardstown. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  John  Mitchell Beckemeyer. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Charles  Muendlein Belleville. 


TRADES  tnSTIONS   THAT  AIDED.  245 

Trades  Council,  B.  J.  Smith Benton. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  John  J.  Collins Bloomington. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Gus  Knies Breese. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Eugene  Shiffert Cairo. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Fred  Lee,  sr Carlinville. 

Central  Labor  Union,  J.  0.  Davis Carrier  Mills. 

Central  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Lewis  Poole Centralia. 

Federation  of  Labor,  E.  N.  Nockels Chicago. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Thomas  H.  Ness Chicago  Heights. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Fred  Saul Christopher. 

Trades  Council,  E.  W.  Cross Collinsville. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  S.  T.  Leonard Danville. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Charles  Wright Decatur. 

Central  Labor  Union,  H.  C.  Roorback Duquoin. 

Trades  and  Labor  Union,  R.  R.  Humphries East  St.  Louis. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  W.  C.  Engelmann Edwardsville. 

Trades  Council,  W.  A.  Turner Eldorado. 

Trades  Council,  A.  B.  Winne Elgin. 

Labor  Council,  M.  K.  Bauer Evanston. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  W.  W.  Wheat Freeport. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  James  W.  Ramp Galesburg. 

Allied  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  J.  E.  Settles Gillespie. 

Tri-City  Central  Trades  Council,  Thos.  M.  Cavanagh Granite  City. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  James  H.  Hubbard Harrisburg. 

Trades  Council,  Luther  Chapman Herrin. 

Trades  Council,  Henry  Murray Hillsboro. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Abe  L.  Wood Jacksonville. 

Trades  Council,  J.  E.  Sullius Johnson  City. 

Central  Trades  and  Labor  Council,  H.  A.  Hanson Joliet. 

Federation  of  Labor,  Charles  Sievers Kankakee. 

Calumet  Joint  Labor  Council,  H .  D .  Fiester Kensington. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  W.  H.  Aldrich Kewanee. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  James  F.  Foley La  Salle. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  W.  J.  Williams Lincoln. 

Trades  Council,  W.  H.  Rix Marion. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Ed  Holmes Marissa. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  George  Deeke Mascoutah. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  R.  H.  Marburger Mount  Olive. 

Trades  Council,  Victor  H.  Melton Murphysboro. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  George  Trant New  Athens. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Louis  Carli O'Fallon. 

Trades  Council,  F.  R.  Baldwin Olney. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  E.  A.  Emrich Ottawa. 

Trades  Council,  Chas.  F.  Plocker Pana. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Everett  Kumpf Pekin. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Walter  S.  Bush Peoria. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  A.  T.  Morrison Peru. 

Trades  Council,  J.  C.  Bell Pinckneyville. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  George  N.  Schmitt Quincy. 

Central  Labor  Union,  C.  E.  Fritz Rockford. 

Tri-City  Federation  of  Labor,  Ed .  Gardner Rock  Island. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  A.  W.  Smith South  Chicago. 

Federation  of  Labor,  R.  E.  Woodmansee Springfield. 

Trades  Council,  William  Menk Staunton. 

United  Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Fred  Mowbray Streator. 

Central  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  George  King Taylorville. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Thomas  R.  Owens West  Frankfort. 

Federation  of  Labor,  J.  L.  Myers Wheaton. 

IOWA. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Albert  Ulrich Burlington. 

Federation  of  Labor,  H.  H.  Bye Cedar  Rapids. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  R.  King Centerville. 

Tri-City  Labor  Congress,  George  C.  Campbell Clinton. 

Central  Labor  Union,  E.  R.  Seaman Creston. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  M.  J.  Fitzpatrick Des  Moines. 


246  WOEKMEK'S  COMFEKTSATKHS-. 

Trades  and  Labor  Congress,  J.  H.  Krahl Dubuque. 

"Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Neil  Murphy Fort  Dodge. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Curtis  C.  Koepf Keokuk. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  John  Golwitzer Marshalltown. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  J.  C.  Nietzel Muscatine. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Millard  Lowe Mystic. 

Trades  Assembly,  George  A.  Fritz Oskaloosa. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  G.  W.  Minor Ottumwa. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  J.  H.  Strief Sioux  City. 

Central  Labor  Union,  W.  A.  Moore Waterloo. 

KANSAS. 

Trades  and  Labor  Congress,  Thomas  Lane Atchison. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  R.  N.  Sullivan Emporia. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Walter  Moberg Fort  Scott. 

Industrial  Labor  Council,  S.  W.  Shoemaker Girard. 

Central  Labor  Union,  F.  M.  Sprague. Independence. 

Central  Labor  Union,  D.  T.  Hawkinson Kansas  City. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  George  B.  Edgell Leaven  worth. 

Trades  Council,  A.  M.  Cochren Mulberry. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Edward  Hammond Parsons. 

United  Trades  and  Labor  Council,  E.  P.  Livingston. ,. . . . . Pittsburg. 

Industrial  Council,  Clarence  Sharon Topeka. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  0.  Monteith Wichita. 

MARYLAND. 

Federation  of  Labor,  George  M.  Henderson Baltimore. 

Trades  Council,  B.  F.  Walters Cumberland. 

Federation  of  Labor,  D.  Snyder Hagerstown. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

Central  Labor  Union,  C.  E.  King Athol. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Henry  Abrahams ." Boston. 

Central  Labor  Union,  F.  C.  Sherman Bridgewater. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Charles  E.  Lowell Brockton. 

Central  Labor  Union,  M.  D.  Collins Cambridge. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  J.  Diamond Chelsea. 

Central  Labor  Union,  M.  A.  Morrissey Chicopee. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  Kyle Fall  River. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Patrick  J.  Conry Fitchburg. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Louis  Urquhart Gloucester. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  Hilbig Greenfield. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  Macdougall Haverhill. 

Central  Labor  Union,  J.  P.  Bleasius Holyoke. 

Central  Labor  Union,  D.  G.  Kimmond Lawrence. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Charles  E.  Anderson Lowell. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  J.  Griffin Lynn. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  J.  Lucey Maiden. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Michael  J.  Flaherty Marlboro. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Elliot  Willard Milford. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Daniel  A.  Bane Millers  Falls. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Henry  S.  Davis New  Bedford. 

Norfolk  County  Central  Labor  Union,  E.  J.  Kelley Norwood. 

Central  Labor  Union,  E.  R.  Stein North  Adams. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Alfred  Asher Northampton. 

Central  Labor  Union,  B.  T.  Powell Pittsfield. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Neil  MacPhail Quincy . 

Central  Labor  Union,  H.  N.  Pratt Rockland. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Norman  J.  Montgomery Salem. 

Central  Labor  Union,  William  E.  Cotter So.  Framingham. 

Central  Labor  Union,  D.  E.  McCarthy Springfield. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Thomas  Menziea. Taunton. 

Central  Labor  Union,  M.  J.  Ferriter Westfield. 

Central  Labor  Union,  G.  H.  Miller Worcester. 


TRADES  TJinONS   THAT  AIDED.  247 

MICHIGAN. 

Trades  Council,  Ben  Hahn ...Albion. 

Trades  Council,  W.  W.  Olney Ann  Arbor. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Bernie  Ward Battle  Creek. 

Central  Trades  Council,  Donald  A.  MacDonald Bay  City. 

Federation  of  Labor,  Charles  J.  Mackey Detroit. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Ferdinand  Jorgensen Escanaba. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  A.  C.  Men  ton Flint. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Charles  J.  Walsh Grand  Rapida. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  W.  J.  Walls Hancock. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Lu.  Anderson Ionia. 

Trades  Council,  Isaac  N .  Jackson Jackson. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Charles  Schaffer Kalamazoo. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  C.  E.  Parker Lansing. 

Trades  Council,  Charles  D.  Moriarity Ludington. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  J.  Bos Muskegon. 

Central  Labor  Union,  David  L.  Brown Pontiac. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Elmer  C.  Douglas Port  Huron. 

Federation  of  Labor,  William  H.  Ferris Saginaw. 

MINNESOTA. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Joe  Gabion Brainerd. 

Federated  Trades  Assembly,  John  E.  Jensen Duluth. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Henry  M.  Brown International  Falls. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Leslie  Sinton Minneapolis. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  William  Shilling Red  Wing. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  L.  G.  Gaspard St.  Cloud. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  George  W.  Lawson St.  Paul. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  J.  H.  McGrew Virginia. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  H.  W.  Libby Winona. 

NEBRASKA. 

Central  Labor  Union,  William  Feinauer Fremont. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Harry  Long Grand  Island. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Clarence  R.  Elyea Lincoln. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  Polian Omaha. 

Centarl  Labor  Union,  J.  L.  Kubat, South  Omaha. 

NEVADA. 

Central  Labor  League,  W.  G.  Mason Ely. 

Central  Trades  and  Labor  Council,  W.  S.  Lumsford Reno. 

NEW    HAMPSHIRE. 

Central  Labor  Union ,  Henry  A.  Smith Berlin. 

Central  Labor  Union,  George  Evans Concord. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Fred  I.  Gates 1 Keene. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Flora  E.  Reed Lebanon. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Thomas  F.  Thornton Manchester. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  Clifford Nashua. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Robert  V.  Noble Portsmouth. 

NEW  JERSEY. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Mark  Jacoby Camden. 

Union  County  Trades  Council,  George  J.  Reiss Elizabeth. 

Hudson  County  Central  Labor  Union,  Joseph  P.  O'Lone.  .Hoboken. 

Essex  Trades  Council.  Henry  F.  Hilf ers Newark. 

Trades  and  Labor  Federation,  Wilson  MacMullen New  Brunswick. 

Federated  Trades  Council,  A.  F.  De  Leo Orange. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  J.  T.  Hannigan Passaic. 

United  Trades  and  Labor  Council,  James  Matthews Patersou. 

Central  Labor  Union  of  Mercer  County,  Reuben  Forker Trenton. 


248  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

OHIO. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Bert  Pence Akron. 

Central  Labor  Union,  R.  C.  Shaffer Alliance. 

Central  Trades  &  Labor  Assembly,  G.  W.  Pyle Bellaire. 

Guernsey  Valley  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  James  W. 
Gilison Cambridge. 

Central  Labor  Union,  H.  R.  Witter Canton. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Charles  E.  Ackerman Cincinnati. 

Federation  of  Labor,  Harry  Thomas Cleveland. 

Federation  of  Labor,  Herman  Werz Columbus. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Charles  W.  Brownfield Coshocton. 

Central  Trades  and  Labor  Council,  C.  M.  Downar Crooksville. 

Trades  Council,  H.  Foose Dayton. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  George  Smith East  Liverpool. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  E.  0.  Lloyd East  Palestine. 

Trades  Assembly,  Charles  E.  Scharf Fostoria. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Roy  Swerdersky Fremont. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  George  A.  Hill Hamilton. 

Labor  Council,  John  H.  Hortel Ironton. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  W.  F.  Batty Lima. 

Central  Trades  Assembly,  Roy  L.  Dupler Logan. 

Federation  of  Labor,  C.  E.  Haury Lorain. 

.Trades  Council,  C.  F.  Gibbs Mansfield. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  S.  T.  Dye Marietta. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  William  B.  Sailer Massillon. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  H.  W.  Naegele Middletown. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  C.  M.  Johnson Newark. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  J.  W.  Knisely New  Philadelphia. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Frank  Marshall Niles. 

Central  Labor  Union,  E.  F.  Lamb Norwalk. 

Central  Labor  Council,  F.  D.  Laudeman Portsmouth. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  J.  C.  Kerr Salem. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  Fred  L.  Butts Sandusky. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  T.  J.  Creager Springfield. 

Jefferson  County  Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  A.  C.  Johns- 
ton  Steubenville. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Thomas  Moss Tiffin. 

Central  Labor  Union,  John  Quinlivan Toledo. 

United  Labor  Congress,  Joseph  M.  Murphy Youngstown. 

Central  Labor  Council,  Joseph  A.  Bauer Zanesville. 

OREGON. 

Central  Labor  Council,  Len.  Lowrey Astoria. 

Central  Labor  Union,  J.  E.  Weckworth Baker. 

Central  Labor  Council,  W.  E.  Johnson Medford. 

Central  Labor  Council,  Arthur  W.  Lawrence Portland. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Art  Artus Salem. 

RHODE    ISLAND. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Archie  E.  Luther Newport. 

Central  Trades  and  Labor  Union,  Howard  L.  Barber Pawtucket. 

Central  Federated  Union,  Laurence  A.  Grace Providence. 

Central  Labor  Union,  George  T.  Lord Westerly. 

Central  Labor  Union,  William  L.  Gahan Woonsocket. 

TEXAS. 

Trades  Council,  J.  B.  Stephenson Austin. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly.  T.  C.  Jennings Beaumont. 

Central  Labor  Union.  Jeff.  Dulaney Childress. 

Central  Labor  Council,  G.  C.  Edwards Dallas. 

Labor  Trades  Council,  R.  M.  Haley Denison. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Henry  M.  Walker El  Paso. 

Trades  Assembly,  R.  W.  Walker Fort  Worth. 

Trades  Council,  G.  M.  Davis Gainesville. 

Labor  Council,  James  P.  Walsh Galveston. 


TRADES   UNIONS    THAT   AIDED. 

Trades  Assembly,  T.  M.  Kerbow Greenville. 

Labor  Council,  Frank  B.  McCurdy Houston. 

Trades  Council,  J.  A.  Schnorbus Marshall. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  W.  M.  Dellis Palestine. 

Trades  Council,  J.  J.  Cunningham Paris. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  William  Whelply Port  Arthur. 

Trades  Council,  Sid.  Murray San  Antonio. 

Central  Labor  Union,  James  L.  McGrew Sherman. 

Central  Labor  Council,  C.  E.  White Texarkana. 

Trades  Council,  J.  E.  Milford Thurber. 

Central  Labor  Union,  A.  H.  B.  Corneliusen Waco. 

Trades  Assembly,  J.  B.  Carter Waco. 

WASHINGTON. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  F.  E.  Hughes Aberdeen. 

Central  Labor  Council,  Harry  Call Bellingham. 

Trades  Council Centralia. 

Central  Labor  Council Cle  Elum. 

Trades  Council,  A.  J.  Tiller Ellensburg. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council.  C.  L.  Hathaway Elma. 

Trades  Council,  M.  T.  Alliman Everett. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Ed.  G.  Zimmer Hoquiam. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  George  T.  Stephens North  Yakima. 

Trades  Council,  Charles  E.  Brown Olympia. 

Trades  Council,  J.  C.  Conlisk Pasco. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Louis  Essmann Racine. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  H.  Hartsell Baymond. 

Central  Labor  Council,  E.  B.  Ault Seattle. 

Central  Labor  Union,  J.  R.  Morford Spokane. 

Central  Labor  Council,  T.  F.  Burns Tacoma. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  L.  F.  Clarke Walla  Walla. 

WEST   VIRGINIA. 

Kanawha  Valley  Central  Labor  Union,  Howard  S.  Jarrett ..  Charleston. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  W.  J.  Murphy Huntingdon. 

Central  Trades  and  Labor  Council,  J.  D.  Reich Parkersburg. 

WISCONSIN. 

Trades  Council,  H.  P.  Ballard Appleton. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Grant  Childs Ashland. 

Trades  Council,  K.  M.  Foltz Beloit. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Al.  Wothe Fond  du  Lac. 

Trades  Council,  Enoch  F.  Thornrose Green  Bay. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Wm.  E.  Stephenson Kenocha. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council.  George  W.  Naegle La  Crosse. 

Federation  of  Labor,  G.  W.  Bartell Madison. 

Central  Labor  Union,  G.  H.  Thompson Manitowoc. 

Federated  Trades  Council,  Frank  J .  Weber Milwaukee. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Frank  Krempin Neenah. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council,  Murt  Malone Oshkosh. 

Trades  and  Labor  Council Racine. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Gustav  Rahn Sheboygan. 

Trades  and  Labor  Assembly,  0.  E.  Eby Superior. 

Central  Labor  Union,  Emil  Doerr Watertown. 

Federated  Trades  Council,  Harry  Kroeger Waukesha. 

Central  Labor  Union,  J.  E.  Cole Wausau. 


250  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

REPRESENTATIVES    OF   INSURANCE    COMPANIES. 

CONNECTICUT. 

Aetna  Life  Insurance  Co.,  J.  Scofield  Howe,  vice  president; 

Ernest  C.  Higgins,  secretary Hartford. 

Travelers'  Insurance  Co.,  Louis  F.  Butler,  vice  president. .  .Hartford. 

ILLINOIS. 

London  Guarantee  &  Accident  Co.  (Ltd.),  F.  W.  Lawson, 
general  manager Chicago, 

MARYLAND. 

Maryland  Casualty  Co.,  F.  Highlands  Burns,  second  vice 
president Baltimore. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

Employers'  Liability  Assurance  Corporation  (Ltd.)  of  Lon- 
don, Samuel  Appleton,  United  States  manager Boston, 

MICHIGAN. 

Standard  Accident  Insurance  Co.,  J.  H.  Thorn,  general 
superintendent Detroit. 

NEW  YORK. 

Casualty  Co.  of  America,  Edwin  W.  De  Leon,  president. . .  New  York  City. 

Frankfort  General  Insurance  Co.  of  Germany,  C.  H.  Frank- 
lin, United  States  manager  and  attorney;  Richard  Lance, 
superintendent  liability  department New  York  City. 

Fidelity  &  Casualty  Co.,  Frank  E.  Law,  vice  president New  York  City. 

Globe  Indemnity  Co.,  A.  Duncan  Reid,  secretary  and 
general  manager;  W.  J.  McCaffrey,  superintendent  lia- 
bility department New  York  City. 

New  Amsterdam  Casualty  Co.,  W.  F.  Moore,  president New  York  City. 

Royal  Indemnity  Co.,  C.  F.  Frizzell,  assistant  general 
manager;  Charles  H.  Holland,  general  manager New  York  City, 

United  States  Casualty  Co.,  Edson  S.  Lott,  president;  R.  S. 
Keelor,  M.  D.,  underwriter New  York  City. 

VERMONT. 

American  Fidelity  Co.,  A.  K.  Willey,  manager  statistical 
department Montpelier. 

WASHINGTON. 

Harry  Lippman,  general  insurance Seattle. 


NO.   9.  BOARDS  OF  AWARD— WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION  COM- 
MISSIONS. 

STATES   HAVING  WORKMEN'S    COMPENSATION   LAWS. 

[Boards  of  award  indicated  where  exist.) 
CALIFORNIA. 

Industrial  accident  commission  (formerly  board),  Underwood  Building,  525  Market 
Street.  San  Francisco: 
A.  J.  Pillsbury,  chairman,  Piedmont. 
Ira  B.  Cross,  secretary,  San  Francisco. 
Will  J.  French,  San  Francisco. 
Col.  Harris  Weinstock,  San  Francisco. 

CONNECTICUT. 

Workmen's  compensation  commission: 

Talcott  H.  Russell,  chairman,  New  Haven. 
George  B.  Chandler,  Rocky  Hill. 
Dr.  J.  J.  Donahue,  Norwich. 
Edward  T.  Buckingham,  Bridgeport. 
F.  M.  Williams,  New  Milford. 

ILLINOIS. 

Industrial  board: 

H.  S.  Tanner,  Paris. 

Peter  Augsten,  Chicago. 

Other  appointments  to  be  made. 

IOWA. 

Iowa  industrial  commissioner  (only  one  administrative  officer): 
Warren  Garst,  Des  Moines. 

MARYLAND. 

Commission  to,  amend  law  listed  separately. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

Industrial  accident  board,  1  Beacon  Street,  Boston: 
James  B.  Carroll,  chairman. 
Dudley  M.  Holman. 
David  T.  Dickinson. 
Edw.  F.  McSweeney. 
Joseph  A.  Parks. 
Robert  E.  Grandfield,  secretary. 

MICHIGAN. 

Industrial  accident  board.  Oakland  Building,  Lansing: 
John  E.  Kinnane,  chairman,  Bay  City. 
Richard  L.  Drake,  secretary,  Lansing. 
J.  A.  Kennedy,  Sault  Ste.  Marie. 
Ora  E.  Reaves,  Jackson. 

MINNESOTA. 

The  labor  commissioner  acts. 

NEBRASKA. 

Law  not  operative  till  voted  upon  by  the  people  in  1914. 

251 


252  WORKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

NEVADA. 

Nevada  Industrial  Commission,  Carson  City: 
Gov.  Tasker  L.  Oddie,  chairman. 
George  B.  Thatcher,  attorney  general. 
Edward  Ryan,  inspector  of  mines. 
H.  A.  Lemmon,  commissioner. 
William  E.  Wallace,  commissioner. 
John  J.  Mullin,  secretary. 

NEW  JERSEY. 

Has  commission  for  amendment  listed  separately. 

NEW  YORK. 

State  workmen's  compensation  commission: 
Not  appointed  Feb.  1,  1914. 

OHIO. 

The  Industrial  Commission  of  Ohio  (new  law  designates  State  Liability  Board  of 
Awards),  Columbus: 
Wallace  D.  Yaple,  chairman. 
M.  B.  Hammond,  vice  chairman. 
T.  J.  Duffy. 
William  C.  Archer,  secretary. 

OREGON. 

The  Oregon  commission: 

C.  D.  Babcock,  257  S.  Sixteenth  Street,  Salem,  one  of  the  commissioners. 

TEXAS. 

Industrial  accident  board,  Austin: 

Joseph  D.  Sayers,  chairman,  Austin,  Tex. 

William  J.  Moran. 

Owen  P.  Pyle. 

Carr  P.  Collins,  secretary. 

WASHINGTON  (STATE). 

The  industrial  insurance  commission,  Olympia: 

Floyd  L.  Daggett,  chairman,  Olympia,  Wash.  i  ' 

A.  B.  Ernst,  Olympia,  Wash. 
John  H.  Wallace,  Olympia,  Wash. 
Howard  L.  Hindley,  secretary. 

WEST   VIRGINIA. 

Public  service  commission,  Charleston: 

Lee  Ott,  chairman  (commissioner  in  charge  workmen's  compensation  fund). 

Charles  H.  Bronson. 

W.  C.  Kilmer. 

Howard  N.  Ogden. 

R.  B.  Bernheim,  secretary. 

WISCONSIN. 

Industrial  Commission  of  Wisconsin,  Madison: 
C.  H.  Crownhart,  chairman. 
J.  D.  Beck. 
Fred  M.  Wilcox. 
L.  A.  Tarrell,  chief  examiner. 
Frank  T.  McCormick,  reporter. 
P.  J.  Watrous,  secretary,  Madison,  Wis. 


STATE   BOARDS   OF    AWARDS.  253 

COMMISSIONS     IN     STATES     HAVING     NO    WORKMEN'S     COMPENSATION 

LAWS. 

COLORADO. 

Employees'  compensation  commission,  Denver: 
Platt  Rogers,  chairman. 
John  0.  Osgood. 
James  Dalrymple. 
John  F,  Pearson. 
Harvey  E.  Garman,  secretary. 
State  Federation  of  Labor  drafting  legislation. 

DELAWARE. 

Had  commission. 

IDAHO. 

Workmen's  compensation  commission: 

(Appointed  by  governor  to  investigate  and  recommend  industrial  insurance  legisl  tion 
to  the  legislature — thirteenth  session.) 

I.  C.  H.  Reynolds,  chairman,  Spirit  Lake. 

Walter  H.  Hanson,  Wallace. 

E.  M.  Hoover,   treasurer,  Boise. 

J.  P.  Nicholas  Wardner. 

T.  W.  Rickard,  Pocatello. 

A.  H.  Connor,  secretary,  Sandpoint. 

INDIANA. 

Workmen's  compensation  commission: 

Henry  W.  Bullock,  attorney  at  law,  chairman,  Indianapolis. 

John  E.  Frederick,  secretary  Kokomo  Steel  &  Iron  Co.,  Kokomo. 

Wm.  Greene,  secretary  International  Typographical  Union  No.  1,  Indianapolis. 

Alfred  M.  Ogle,  president  Vandalia  Coal  Co.,  Terre  Haute. 

Chas.  Fox,  secretary  District  11,  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  Terre  Haute. 

KENTUCKY. 

Law  recently  introduced. 

LOUISIANA. 

Employers'  liability  commission: 

Walter  J.  Burke,  chairman,  New  Iberia. 

Leon  Locke,  Lake  Charles. 

Robert  Roberts,  Minden. 

Martin  Manion,  Hennen  Building,  New  Orleans. 

W.  T.  Cristy,  New  Orleans. 

Advisory  members: 

H.  B.  Hewes,  Jeanerette. 

Robert  E.  Lee,  New  Orleans. 

Ed.  J.  Gay,  Plaquemine. 

Oscar  Bush,  Shreveport. 

MAINE. 

Official  commission,  appointed  by  legislature  March  20,  1913,  to  investigate  subject 
and  report  bill  to  next  legislature : 
John  B.  Kehoe,  98  Exchange  Street,  Portland. 
Ray  Marston,  Skowhegan. 
Willis  E.  Swift,  Augusta. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Clayton  D.  Potter,  Jackson,  Miss.,  member  of  legislature,  has  prepared  bill  on 
workmen's  compensation  to  be  introduced  next  legislature. 


254  WOBKMEN'S  COMPENSATION. 

MISSOURI. 

Missouri  Senate  workmen's  compensation  commission  (second  commission): 
State  senators— 

B.  L.  White,  chairman,  Marceline. 

W.  0.  Goodson,  secretary,  Macon. 

R.  S.  McClintic,  Monroe  City. 

Wm.  G.  Busby,  Carrollton. 

A.  S.  PhiUips,  1605  Pierce  Building,  St.  Louis. 

MONTANA. 

Had  commission. 

People's  Power  League  endeavoring  to  initiate  law  to  go  before  people  next  elec- 
tion, a  year  hence.    M.  McCusker,  secretary,  Livingston. 

NORTH  DAKOTA. 

Commission  appointed  by  governor: 
D.  B.  Holt,  Fargo. 
M.  N.  Thatcher,  Fargo. 
Fred  G.  Cleveland,  Jamestown. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

Industrial  accidents  commission: 

David  A.  Reed,  chairman,  Carnegie  Building,  Pittsburgh. 

J.  Barry  Colahan,  jr.,  1011  Chestnut  Street,  Philadelphia. 

Morris  Williams,  907  Arcade  Building,  Philadelphia. 

Geo.  C.  Hetzel,  Chester. 

Francis  Feehan,  Ferguson  Building,  Pittsburgh. 

John  J.  Gushing,  Monessen. 

Francis  H.  Bohlen,  secretary,  Bullitt  Building,  Philadelphia. 

PORTO  RICO. 

Hon.  Sanchez  Morales,  President  Executive  Council. 
Hon.  Jose  de  Diego,  speaker  of  house. 
Hon.  Wolcott  H.  Pitkin,  attorney  general. 

Hon. Bills,  commissioner  of  labor. 

Hon.  A.  G.  Wolf,  associate  justice  supreme  court,  Box  1187,  San  Juan. 

TENNESSEE. 

Workmen's  compensation  commission,  appointed   by  governor   to  report  to  1915 
legislature: 

Hon.  W.  R.  Cole,  Nashville. 
Prof.  G.  W.  Dyer,  Nashville. 
J.  H.  Turner,  Nashville. 
Jas.  A.  Fowler,  Knoxyille. 
T.  J.  Hoskins,  Knoxville. 

VERMONT. 

To  study  subject: 

Frank  E.  Howe,  Bennington. 

Hale  K.  Darling,  Chelsea. 

Guy  W.  Bailey,  secretary  of  state,  Essex  Junction. 

VIRGINIA. 
Had  committee  on  uniformity  of  legislation  several  years  ago. 


STATE  BOARDS   OE   AWARDS.  255 

STATES    IN    WHICH    LAWS    HAVE     BEEN    ENACTED    BUT    COMMISSIONS 
STILL   EXIST  TO   HELP   SECURE    AMENDMENTS. 

MARYLAND. 

[Law  defective.] 

Employers'  liability  and  workmen's  compensation  commission: 
J  Walter  Lord,  chairman,  Maryland  Trust  Building. 
F.  W.  Wood. 
Geo.  WMtelock. 
David  J.  Lewis. 
C.  N.  Steigelman. 
Frank  A.  White,  secretary,  100  Equitable  Building. 

NEW  JERSEY^ 

Employers'  liability  commission,  Trenton: 
Wm.  B.  Dickson,  president,  Montclair. 
Samuel  Botterill,  East  Orange. 
J.  William  Clark,  Newark. 
John  T.  Cosgrove,  Elizabeth. 
Walter  E.  Edge,  Atlantic  City. 
Edward  K.  Mills,  Morristown . 
Wm.  E.  Stubbs,  secretary,  Trenton. 

COMMISSIONS  NO  LONGER  EXISTING  IN  STATES  HAVING  NO  COMPENSATION  LAWS. 

DELAWARE. 

Employers'  liability  commission: 

T.  Allen  Hilles,  president,  Wilmington. 

Sylvester  D.  Townsend,  jr.,  Wilmington. 

Thos.  F.  Flynn,  Wilmington. 

Alfred  B.  Moore,  Wilmington. 

James  E.  Hoffecker,  Smyrna. 

Arthur  J.  Jennings,  secretary,  Wilmington. 

(Above  commission  appointed  in  1911  by  the  governor.  Reported  bill  of  their 
findings  at  the  recent  session  of  the  general  assembly,  but  the  bill  was  not  passed  and 
the  life  of  the  commission  terminated.) 

Thos.  W.  Miller,  secretary  of  state,  Dover,  Del.,  is  interested  in  literature  on  the 
subject. 

MONTANA. 

Commission  appointed  by  ex-Gov.  Norris  during  his  administration: 
J.  C.  Lowney,  Butte. 
Neill  Collins,  Butte. 
J.  E.  McNally,  Butte. 
Wm.  L.  Holloway,  Helena. 
W.  F.  Meyer,  Red  Lodge. 
J.  H.  Hall,  Helena. 

VIRGINIA. 

Committee  on  uniformity  of  legislation  appointed  several  years  ago: 
Jas.  R.  Caton,  Alexandria. 
Eugene  Massie,  Richmond. 
P.  D.  Deanes,  Windsor. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    days 

prior  to  due  date 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


R  1995 


APR  2  1 1998 


20,000  (4/94) 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


